Director of Public Prosecutions v Dunkley-Price
[2013] VCC 2048
•16 December 2013
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION
Case Nos. CR-12-00621 and CR-12-00662
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| TRAVIS DUNKLEY-PRICE and |
| BRETT STEVENSON |
---
JUDGE: | HER HONOUR JUDGE PULLEN | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 22 November 2013 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 16 December 2013 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Dunkley-Price & Anor | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2013] VCC 2048 | |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject:
Catchwords:
Legislation Cited:
Cases Cited:
Sentence:
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Prosecution | Mr J. Lewis | Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For Travis Dunkley-Price | Ms C. Randazzo SC with Mr K. McDonald | Emma Turnbull |
| For Brett Stevenson | Mr B. Nibbs | Robert Stary & Associates |
HER HONOUR:
1 Travis Dunkley-Price, you have been found guilty following jury verdict of one charge of culpable driving involving the deceased Breanna Willmott, the maximum penalty being 20 years imprisonment, and one charge of negligently causing serious injury to Stephanie Bewley, with the maximum penalty being ten years' imprisonment.
2 In addition to the charges for which the jury returned guilty verdicts in your case, Mr Dunkley-Price, you have also agreed and pleaded guilty to a summary charge being dealt with pursuant to s.145 Criminal Procedure Act 2009 of driving whilst your licence was suspended. The maximum penalty applicable is 240 penalty units or two years' imprisonment.
3 You, Mr Stevenson, were found guilty by jury verdict of one charge of dangerous driving causing death in relation to Breanna Willmott, the maximum penalty being ten years' imprisonment, and one charge of dangerous driving causing serious injury in relation to Stephanie Bewley, the maximum penalty being five years' imprisonment.
4 It is not necessary to summarise in great detail the facts and circumstances of your offending in which Ms Willmott died and Ms Bewley was seriously injured, as this was canvassed throughout the duration of your trial. A brief summary will suffice.
5 You, Travis Dunkley-Price, were 34 years of age at the time of the collision, and you, Brett Stevenson, 22 years of age.
6 On 19 July 2010 at approximately 6.10 to 6.15 pm, this collision occurred on the Western Highway at Myrniong.
7 The collision resulted in the death of Breanna Willmott and serious injury to her passenger, Stephanie Bewley. Breanna Willmott was 20 years of age at the time, and Stephanie Bewley 18 years of age.
8 You, Mr Dunkley-Price, were the driver and sole occupant of your black 2004 Holden Commodore utility. It was the prosecution case, and accepted by the jury, that you stopped your vehicle in the left-hand running lane of the Western Highway near the Myrniong off-ramp.
9 The jury, in returning verdicts of guilty in relation to the two charges relevant to you, accepted the prosecution had proven beyond reasonable doubt that at the time of the collision your vehicle was stopped in the left-hand running lane and not in the left-hand emergency lane as urged during the trial.
10 In your record of interview with police you said you thought you had stopped in the left-hand emergency lane to make a phone call on your mobile phone prior to leaving the highway.
11 The speed limit on this part of the highway is 110 kilometres per hour. It was dark at the time of the collision.
12 Ms Willmott, the driver of a maroon Mitsubishi Magna sedan, was intending to take the Myrniong off-ramp and Ms Bewley was her front-seat passenger.
13 Ms Willmott was travelling west as were you, Mr Dunkley-Price, and as she approached the Myrniong exit, she was in the left lane. As Ms Willmott approached the exit she came upon your vehicle ahead of her slowing to a stop in the left-hand running lane. Your vehicle stopped, and Ms Willmott stopped her vehicle behind yours.
14 You, Mr Stevenson, were driving a Holden Commodore utility and were the sole occupant of your vehicle. You approached Mr Dunkley-Price and Ms Willmott’s vehicles from behind. A number of cars passed Mr Dunkley-Price and Ms Willmott’s vehicles at the time when they were either travelling slowly or stationary in that left-hand running lane. Each of those witnesses denied specifically the suggestion put to them by your counsel, Mr Dunkley-Price, that your car was in the left-hand emergency lane.
15 Shortly after Ms Willmott pulled up behind you Mr Dunkley-Price, you, Mr Stevenson, drove into the rear of Ms Willmott’s vehicle, forcing her car into the rear of Mr Dunkley-Price’s car. The impact resulted in the death of Ms Willmott and serious injury to Ms Bewley.
16 Expert evidence was called during the trial by the prosecution from Detective-Sergeant Peter Bellion and expert evidence called in your case Mr Dunkley-Price from Tia Orton. The jury had an opportunity not only to observe those experts as they gave evidence but to also assess the areas of dispute between them. In brief, the latter revolved around whether you, Mr Dunkley-Price, were in the left-hand running lane or in the left-hand emergency lane at the time of the collision, the location of the three vehicles at the time of impact with each other, and the perception and reaction times relevant to you, Mr Stevenson.
17 The details obtained from the crash data retrieval log, which both experts accepted provided accurate data from your vehicle, Mr Stevenson, indicated that in the space of two and a half seconds to point five seconds prior to impact your vehicle increased its speed from 106 to 109 kilometres an hour, that the throttle was deployed manually, that the throttle percentage increased, that engine revolutions were increasing, and that there was no braking or evasive steering input by you prior to the impact with the rear of the Magna.
18 Emergency services attended the collision scene. Ms Willmott was pronounced deceased at the scene. Ms Bewley, who had been in the front passenger seat of the Magna, was taken by ambulance to Ballarat Base Hospital. She suffered injuries including bruising to her lower chest and upper abdominal area, back, pelvis and right hip. She was admitted to hospital for observation and pain relief. It was conceded by both counsel on your behalf, in the form of an agreed fact, that the injuries sustained by Ms Bewley in the collision were correctly in law described as serious injury.
19 At the scene, you, Mr Dunkley-Price, and you, Mr Stevenson, alighted from your vehicles. You, Mr Dunkley-Price, suffered a small cut to your right eyelid, with some bleeding, and were taken to Ballarat Base Hospital. Mr Stevenson, you did not require medical treatment.
20 Members of the Victoria Police Major Collision Investigation Unit also attended. Photographs and measurements were taken, and this information was before the jury for their assessment. In particular, the police identified gouge marks in the centre of the left-hand running lane and two short tyre scrub marks immediately before the gouges, consistent with the impact. Ms Willmott’s vehicle had two major areas of damage, the most substantial to the rear of her vehicle where it was struck by you, Mr Stevenson. There was also a fluid spatter trail which the prosecution submitted was consistent with the Magna having been shunted forward in a clockwise direction. Ms Orton on your behalf, Mr Dunkley-Price, gave evidence that in her opinion the Magna moved in an anti-clockwise direction.
21 In addition, Ms Willmott’s Magna received significant crushing to its front consistent with collision and damage to the rear of your vehicle, Mr Dunkley-Price.
22 Examination of the tail-lights of your car, Mr Dunkley-Price, showed distortion consistent with the tail-lights being operative at the time of impact. It would appear that the stop-lights were not operative on the utility at the time of impact. There was no mechanical fault on any vehicle that would have caused or contributed to the collision.
23 This collision is yet another tragic incident on our roads caused by driving. You, Mr Dunkley-Price, stopped your vehicle in the left-hand lane, an act of gross negligence, and your driving dangerous, Mr Stevenson, in that you did not react appropriately and in a timely way to the presence of the stationary vehicles. Another case involving devastation to the lives of all families in this matter, in particular the loss of life of a vibrant, young woman, Ms Willmott, at just 20 years of age.
24 Turning to you, Mr Dunkley-Price, Ms Randazzo outlined your background and history. Your mother was working as an accountant until recently. You have an older brother, Adam, who owns his own business, Prism Constructions, and is able to provide you with employment following your release from custody. Over the years, you also worked with your father for a short time. Both parents are now retired.
25 You completed Year 10 and then two months into Year 11, leaving school at 16 and a half to work with your father at TNT. You then began a carpentry apprenticeship at Schiavello where you remained for approximately seven to eight years.
26 Whilst in that employment, you saved enough money to purchase your first home with your then partner, Julie Holden.
27 After leaving Schiavello at approximately 25 years of age, you worked in concreting for approximately seven to eight years until you were 32. You then moved to Tasman Meats, where you remained for approximately fourteen months.
28 At the time of this offending, you were employed at Winslow Constructions as a pipe layer.
29 Over your working life you saved enough money to purchase a second home just prior to this offending.
30 You had a job, a car loan and a house but because of the unavailability of public transport and the fact at that stage you did not have a car, you moved to Tarneit to be closer to your then employment and to Ms Burns.
31 Approximately two to three days prior to moving to Tarneit and just days after the offences before me you found out that your then partner, Ms Burns, was pregnant with your child. You now have a son, Tyler, 2 and a half years of age. Ms Burns was at court to support you and I was told by Ms Randazzo she visits you regularly in custody.
32 You moved to Blackwood as a result of the continuing issues with Ms Holden and Tyrone, who is now 8. You purchased the house at Blackwood in 2011 and lived there on your own whilst in your relationship with Ms Burns, who lived elsewhere, to enable her to be closer to her parents.
33 It would appear that following the birth of Tyrone, Ms Holden suffered with depression and, as a result of that and other matters, your relationship also suffered.
34 Your prior court appearance on 26 February 2007 related to an altercation between yourself and Ms Holden. I was told regarding your appearance on that date, that you actually went to court to seek an adjournment, however the Magistrate refused and your matter then proceeded. You were sentenced to a term of imprisonment which you served, and did not appeal.
35 Regarding the breach of intervention orders in your criminal history, those related to an intervention order taken out by Ms Holden after you separated. You consented to the intervention order on the condition you be permitted to have contact with Tyrone and that your parents be able to see Tyrone every two weeks. Ms Holden did not comply with the conditions. Court proceedings, I was told, are currently on foot regarding access to Tyrone, another hearing on 29 January 2014 brought by you so Tyrone would be able to see his grandparents.
36 Regarding your appearance on 9 May 2007, I understood those offences involved your attempts to have her comply with the condition Tyrone have access to you and your parents. At the time of the collision, you were still having ongoing issues with Ms Holden and you had not at that stage seen your son, Tyrone, for some time.
37 Ms Randazzo prepared a helpful outline of submissions which included further details of your background and history addressed during the course of your plea hearing.
38 Your past drug use history included use of marijuana from the age of 16 to 17, later developing the habit of taking rohypnol and speed. There was some indication that you had previously had mental health issues, including a diagnosis of bipolar disorder in your early 20s, however as I understood it you had been given the “all clear” since you were approximately 25 to 26 years of age.
39 Ms Randazzo referred to her becoming aware after your trial that you had previously sustained damage to your optic nerve as a result of a fall that occurred in November 2005. Your vision, however, was now good.
40 At the time of this offending before me, Ms Randazzo submitted that none of your previous mental health issues or any other health issues adversely affected you. Specifically, she was not relying on any of the principles in R vVerdins& Ors[1], and that, in my opinion, was an appropriate concession.
[1](2007) 16 VR 269
41 Whilst Ms Randazzo initially submitted you did not have any subsequent matters, I was advised that in 2011 you received traffic infringement notices for speeding, one occurring on 10 July 2011, the other on 12 December 2011. Fines and demerit points were imposed. Those were not court appearances. Whilst they indicate some speeding in your traffic history, given they occurred subsequently to the offending before me, I have disregarded those for the purposes of sentencing you for the offences that are before me.
42 It is also apparent from your prior criminal history that your offending before me breached a suspended sentence imposed at the Ballarat Magistrates’ Court on 3 March 2009 and I discussed this at some length with both Mr Lewis, who appeared for the prosecution, and Ms Randazzo. It is concerning that you committed the offences before me whilst on that order. However, given the nature of the offending involved on that occasion, being breach of intervention orders and the offending before me being of a very different type, whilst it is a concerning matter that you were subject to the suspended sentence, I do not regard it as an aggravating feature of the offending that is before me and I discussed this with counsel at the further plea on 28 November 2013.
43 You have a number of prior court appearances that do concern me relevant to your driving history. On 10 June 1998 you were before the court on a charge of driving whilst your licence was suspended and exceeding the speed limit. You were convicted and fined and your licence suspended for two months.
44 A traffic infringement notice was issued on 22 September 2004 for excessive speed, being between 40 to 45 kilometres over the speed limit. You were fined the statutory amount and your licence suspended for six months.
45 On 8 July 2005 you were before the court for driving whilst your licence was suspended and failing to stop at a stop sign. You were convicted and sentenced to one months' imprisonment suspended for 12 months and, having been brought up for breach of the suspended sentence at Sunshine Magistrates’ Court on 26 February 2007, you were convicted without penalty. A conviction and fine was imposed for failing to stop at a stop sign.
46 On 11 November 2005 a traffic infringement notice was issued for exceeding the prescribed concentration of alcohol, with a reading of 0.100 per cent to 0.109 per cent. You were fined and any drivers licence was cancelled and disqualified for ten months.
47 On 18 January 2009 a traffic infringement notice was issued for exceeding the speed limit by between 35 and 40 kilometres an hour. You were fined and your licence suspended for six months.
48 What is an aggravating feature, however, is that at the time of this offending you were also unlicensed and should not have been on the road that day. Quite simply, had you complied with the period of suspension this collision would not have occurred.
49 I turn to your plea of guilty to the offence of driving whilst your licence was suspended.
50 The fact that you have pleaded guilty to that charge is relevant in mitigation of that sentence. You have saved the community time and money in relation to a trial on that charge. I note, however, that once this collision occurred, your driving status was going to be ascertained, as indeed it was. Given the circumstances, it was a very strong case for the offence of driving whilst suspended.
51 Having said that, the fact you have pleaded guilty to that charge is relevant in mitigation of the sentence imposed on that charge.
52 Ms Randazzo submitted the circumstances of your offending were less serious than other culpable driving cases that come before the court, in that there were no illicit substances involved, you were not suffering from fatigue at the time of the collision, there was no suggestion of speeding at the time or wildly erratic driving by you.
53 Ms Randazzo submitted that yours was momentary inattention and misjudgement, warranting a conclusion, she urged, that your offending fell at the lower end of culpability for the offences before me. I disagree. Your stopping on the freeway, albeit you believed it was the emergency lane, in a 110 kilometres per hour zone, in the dark, with traffic present at that time of day, was a bad example of "gross negligence". Whilst there are no doubt worse examples of this offending, I consider your offending to be at the higher range of culpability involving gross negligence.
54 Turning to your rehabilitation prospects at 37 years of age at sentence, Ms Randazzo submitted that there were good rehabilitation prospects as you had a solid work history prior to your recent incarceration, and whilst in custody you had undertaken an occupational health and safety course and were to commence a course in horticulture. You were also on a waiting list to complete a first aid course. She submitted you had displayed a willingness in custody to occupy your time constructively. Your lack of any mental health issues or illicit drug usage were also relevant to your good rehabilitation prospects.
55 I was handed a certificate of completion for participation in Worksafe Safety, your request to attend a number of programs as outlined on the MRC Education Unit Referral form and an industry application form relevant to your current working in herbaculture, Exhibit DP3.
56 There were four references before me.
57 From Bill Aggelis, dated 20 November 2013, who has known you for 30 years since primary school. He described you as family orientated and a doting father. You were generous and honest.
58 From Martin Bentley, dated 23 November 2013, who has known you for 30 years also from primary school. You were a reliable and trustworthy friend. The separation from your son Tyrone had weighed heavily upon you. When he had seen you with Tyrone you were a positive and healthy influence upon him. I am somewhat concerned by your description to him of your offending as being foolish, although I accept he may not have used your exact words.
59 A reference from Adam Dunkley-Price, your older brother. He has employed you on a number of occasions with his company Prism Constructions. He said you were a conscientious and hard worker, willing to help when needed.
60 He described your long history involved in sporting activities and success in them. You were devoted to your children. You were honest and up front. Of some concern is the doubt however in that reference cast upon the jury verdict.
61 From Joe Misiti, dated 21 November 2013, who has known you for 33 years, principally through sport. He said you were friendly, hardworking, and a dedicated father, in particular surrounding Tyrone’s sporting interests and involvement.
62 Regarding your rehabilitation prospects, I have concerns given your relevant prior driving offences and your apparent non-acceptance of the jury verdict and your criminality. Having said that, you have had stable employment in the past and showed devotion to your children, and of course when sentencing I must seek to maximise your chances of rehabilitation as they may be.
63 Regarding the two charges on the indictment before me, Ms Randazzo submitted that whilst there would be some cumulation between those two charges, she submitted there should be “a significant amount of concurrency”. In written and oral submissions on 28 November 2013, Ms Randazzo made further submissions in that regard and referred to a number of authorities which accurately state the law in that regard. However, regarding her submission, I disagree. But having said that, when determining the appropriate concurrency and cumulation on the charges for your offending, I am conscious that there are two victims of your offending from this single incident.
64 Whilst Ms Randazzo conceded that a term of imprisonment was the only appropriate disposition, she urged a longer period on parole was appropriate in your case.
65 Ms Randazzo submitted the range urged by the prosecution was excessive in the circumstances of the offending as urged by her. That is, that your offending fell at the lower end of culpability. But, as I have said, I do not agree it was at the "lower end".
66 Turning to you, Mr Stevenson. Mr Nibbs provided a written outline of his submissions and addressed them during the course of your plea hearing. Other material was also before me including a chronology and a report of Mr Patrick Newton and a number of references.
67 Mr Nibbs provided detail of your background and history, much of which was also contained in the report of Mr Newton. At the time of sentence you are 25 years of age and in a relationship with Ms Jessica Simpson.
68 You had been in a relationship with her for approximately three years, had built your own home and had a substantial mortgage. She will now have to cope with that on her own whilst you served your sentence. Mr Nibbs was appropriately not relying on family hardship when sentencing, although I do accept you will be under some stress in custody worrying about her ability to maintain the payments on your home.
69 After leaving school during Year 12, you began an electrical apprenticeship and are qualified in that trade. At the time you were taken into custody, you were a leading hand at your work, resigning from that position when remanded.
70 You have been solidly employed since that time, apart from a short period of time when the company you were then working with went into liquidation. Mr Nibbs submitted you would be able to easily obtain work following release from custody, although submitted your inability to drive following any period of disqualification would impede that. In that regard, he urged the minimum period of disqualification of 18 months apply in your case.
71 Mr Nibbs relied heavily upon your lack of prior court appearances and I am also aware of that. Whilst I was advised of a speeding ticket subsequent to this offending, I do not regard that as relevant to your sentence for the charges before me.
72 This is your first time in custody.
73 Mr Nibbs referred to your time to date in custody and that you had spent a significant amount, specifically 16 days, in custody in the Ballarat cells. Those conditions meant you were only permitted one visit per week for half an hour and you were not permitted to make any phone calls. I accept this would have made your introduction to the prison system more difficult, that is not being able to have contact with your family during that transition.
74 Ms Randazzo also later referred to the equivalent time in your case, Mr Dunkley-Price, in the same cell conditions as Mr Stevenson, i.e. at Ballarat cells for 16 days and I have also taken that into account.
75 But returning to you, Mr Stevenson, after that 16 days, you transferred to the Melbourne Remand Centre where you were able to access phone and family contact. You, Mr Dunkley-Price, have also moved.
76 Regarding your offending behaviour, Mr Stevenson, I accept that there were a number of aggravating features often found in offending such as yours that is not present in your case, including the lack of speed at the time, no alcohol/drugs and no erratic driving by you. When I say lack of speed, you were under the speed limit. The prosecution case against you was that your driving was dangerous due to your inattention, that you had time to see the stationary Magna in front of you and should have been able to react and avoid the collision.
77 Whilst I accept there are a number of aggravating features not present in your offending, your driving was extremely concerning on this night. In particular, you should have been more alert, given it was dark or near dark at the time of this collision and it was on a 110 kilometres an hour highway. A driver can never know when there is going to be an obstacle on the road or something else requiring evasive action. The evidence was clear you had sufficient time to perceive and react but did not.
78 Mr Nibbs submitted you were remorseful, such demonstrated by your reaction at the time you were told of Ms Willmott’s death, and upon being made aware that the driver, Brianna Willmott was someone known to you. You expressed your desire to speak to Ms Willmott’s family to explain that you were sorry for her death and the injury caused, however, it would seem you were advised against that course by your family. You acknowledged Ms Willmott had been "cut down in her prime" by your offending.
79 Whilst in prison, you had completed two courses, a Court Readiness Program and a Coping with Change Program, with those certificates in a folder of material produced by Mr Nibbs, Exhibit S1.
80 I was given a report by Mr Patrick Newton, Forensic and Clinical Psychologist, dated 16 November 2013, who assessed you in custody on 15 November 2013.
81 Further details were provided by him regarding your background and history. You are the second of three brothers, growing up in the Greendale area in Victoria.
82 You described your relationship with your parents and siblings in positive terms.
83 You attended a local primary school in Myrniong and then a secondary school in Bacchus Marsh. You described yourself as an average student, progressing through the various grades or years without difficulty.
84 You left school after completing a few weeks of Year 12 to undertake an electrical apprenticeship. Since then I accept you have had a positive work history. In your various employments you have been promoted to foreman and leading hand.
85 As at the date of the report, you had been in a stable relationship of approximately three years’ duration with Ms Simpson, and you spoke of that relationship also in positive terms. You had postponed formalising your commitment to each other whilst your legal matters were outstanding. You were, as I have noted, concerned about her ability to meet financial commitments such as the mortgage on your new home without you.
86 Regarding your mental health, you had not previously consulted a psychiatrist or psychologist, although not surprisingly you experienced symptoms of anxiety and distress in the aftermath of the collision, and attended a psychologist briefly at that time.
87 A further source of your anxiety was the delay in the resolution of this matter. Mr Nibbs submitted that there was delay in your case in finalisation of these matters, though conceded any delay in the circumstances was of minimal relevance when sentencing, and I agree.
88 You continued to experience moderate anxiety-related symptoms.
89 You did not report any problematic alcohol use and had not experimented with illicit substances.
90 Mr Newton observed you did not have a prior criminal record apart from some speeding fines.
91 You had expressed appropriate remorse to him for the death of Ms Willmott.
92 Regarding your current presentation of anxiety, Mr Newton referred to your continued recollections of the collision, and that being in custody had provided a fertile environment for those ruminations to grow. You were also anxious regarding your forthcoming sentence and life separated from your partner whilst undergoing sentence. Not surprisingly, while you were adjusting to prison, you were finding yourself stressed. In Mr Newton’s opinion, you were experiencing moderately intense anxiety-related symptoms. Those, however, were considered by Mr Newton to be within normal limits and did not warrant formal diagnosis at that time. He suggested you should be monitored in custody to ensure your mental state did not deteriorate quickly.
93 Turning to your cognitive functioning, you were assessed by Mr Newton with intelligence in the “normal range”. Further, your personality adjustment was considered to be normal, adaptive and positive.
94 There was no indication of psychopathic or antisocial personality traits with no evidence of problems with impulse control. He described you as compassionate and caring in your relationships.
95 You did not meet the criteria for any personality disorder which would have impacted adversely on your ability to rehabilitate.
96 In conclusion, Mr Newton concluded you were “an essentially normal person” coming to terms with the event which had left you imprisoned, and you were likely to experience anxiety for some time.
97 In Mr Newton’s opinion your prospects for sustained positive adjustment were based upon firstly, the support you had from your family, friends and partner, that you had a stable employment history and good work skills. You also had stable accommodation. You had also expressed empathy for the family of Ms Willmott and regretted what had occurred. Further, you did not have any diagnosable mental disorder, nor did you have any behavioural pathology that might precipitate further offending. He concluded that there was optimism regarding your future.
98 Referring to the report from Mr Newton, Mr Nibbs conceded that none of the principles raised in that report raised the applicability of the principles in Verdins in your case, and again such was an appropriate concession.
99 A number of references were placed before me from your family, friends and also regarding your employment, and I have read each of those references and I will only briefly refer to them in these sentencing remarks.
100 There was a reference from your partner, Jessica Simpson, confirming she has been in a stable relationship with you for three years. You had recently completed building your first home together. She described you as remorseful for your offending. You had struggled mentally and emotionally to come to terms with it and the death and injury that had resulted from it. She described you as loyal and trustworthy.
101 There was a reference from Bertram Stevenson, dated 11 November 2013, your father. He described you as being visibly shaken after the death of Ms Willmott at the scene of the collision when he attended to see you. You were a caring son and brother and unassuming. He referred to the discussion he had with you regarding wanting to speak to Ms Willmott’s family and the decision not to. He described you as a hardworking person who had matured since this collision.
102 A reference from Pamela Stevenson, your mother. Upon hearing the identity of Ms Willmott you were devastated as you had known her through primary school. Even though you had not seen her in many years, it was distressing for you to be told that she was the driver. She described the positive relationship between yourself and Ms Simpson. You were hardworking, gentle, kind natured and generous with your time and money.
103 Your mother also gave evidence before me and she described you as being a quiet young man. You were extremely upset by your offending and the death and injury caused in this collision. Ms Willmott had attended primary school with your brother. She confirmed that you wanted to apologise to the Willmott family, however she and her husband dissuaded you from that course for the reasons outlined in various references and in her evidence.
104 A reference form Henry Cortenbach, who has known you for your whole life and enjoyed a close relationship with you. He described you as a hard worker, good brother and son and a good contributor to your community. You had a good work history holding positions of responsibility. He described you as remorseful and regretful regarding the death of Ms Willmott. You had often been distressed when discussing the collision and her death.
105 There was a reference from Graham Layley, your uncle, dated 25 October 2013. He described you as a quiet young man, friendly, extremely well mannered, and respectful of your parents and others. You were remorseful and regretful for the death of Ms Willmott and he described you as hardworking and dedicated to your family.
106 A reference from your aunt, Fiona Dupuy, dated 30 October 2013. She had not discussed your offending with you, however, described you as easy going and hardworking.
107 There was a reference from Anthony Dupuy, dated 30 October 2013, an uncle by marriage. He described you as a diligent, hardworking man, respectful of others, but he had not spoken to you about your offending.
108 A reference from your aunt, Anne Speers, dated 23 October 2013, who had seen you distressed talking about your offending. You had worked through school and worked in your employment and she described you as kind and compassionate.
109 A reference from Michael Simpson, dated 27 October 2013, the father of Jessica Simpson. You had worked for his son, Adam, as an electrician. You were remorseful for your offending, aware of how it had impacted upon others.
110 A reference from Ben Hutcheson, dated 20 October 2013, who had known you for about four years. You worked for him at JM Group Australia as his leading hand. He described you as honest, genuine, well-mannered, caring and giving. He referred to your offer to him of money when he needed it. You were shocked and emotional about your offending. When you eventually returned to work after the collision, you were quiet, upset and anxious.
111 A reference from Adam Simpson, dated 16 October 2013, who had been a friend of yours for five years and is the brother of Jessica Simpson. He described you as conscientious, hardworking and dependable. He had spoken to you about your offending and you were remorseful for it.
112 A reference from Declan Downes, dated 28 October 2103, who had known you since 1991. He described you as confident, composed and hardworking. He had spoken to you about this offending and you were deeply remorseful, aware of the impact it had had not only on yourself but also the other parties involved.
113 There was a reference from Morgan Downes, dated 29 October 2013 who described himself as your close friend. Over the years you had spent hours together outside school with common interests such as water sports, AFL, social outings, and taking holidays with each other’s families. He described you as respectful, responsible, loving and caring, but since this collision you were withdrawn.
114 A reference from Lachlan Wilkie, dated 29 October 2013, who had been a friend of yours for about ten years. He had spoken to you about these charges on several occasions. You stated you were very sorry the incident had occurred. In the ten years he had known you, you have never had an alcohol problem, drug problem or illicit substance issue. You had always been hardworking.
115 A reference from Carlie Bloss, dated 11 November 2013, who had known you for 26 years. She described you as a good worker and respected in the community.
116 A reference from Jessica Gargan, dated 25 October 2013, who had known you for approximately six years. She regularly saw you and your girlfriend. From speaking to you, she had observed that you deeply regretted what happened and you were genuine, kind, hardworking and selfless.
117 A reference from Megan Rayner, dated 10 October 2013, who had known you for approximately five years. She had not spoken to you about your charges. She described you as caring, hardworking, and dedicated to providing a home for Jessica. You had expressed remorse for your offending, and she had seen a change in your demeanour since you were charged.
118 A reference from Larelle Kuczer, dated 23 October 2013, who had known you for three years since you commenced your relationship with Ms Simpson. From discussions with you regarding your offending you had shown remorse. Your offending had a significant impact on your life since this collision. She described you as compassionate, caring, sincere and down to earth.
119 A reference from Alisha Hanson, dated 29 October 2013, a close friend of your family. She had spent time holidaying and socialising with both you and Jessica. She described you as approachable, responsible, caring and loving towards your family, friends and the community. Since this collision she had not seen you a great deal, but when she had you had not been your usual joyful self. She would continue to support you.
120 A reference from Jennifer and Graeme Downes, dated 20 October 2013, who had known your family for approximately 20 years. You would often visit and stay at their home. They described you as responsible, polite and honest. After the collision they saw a change in your personality. You were quieter, you lost weight and had become withdrawn. They had not spoken to you regarding your offending.
121 A letter from Leanne and James Easdon, dated 30 October 2013, who have known you for 22 years. Their children and you grew up together and have become long-time friends. They noted, as did other references, you found it difficult remaining in the community as a result of media publicity regarding your offending. They described you as decent, hardworking, caring and honest.
122 There was a reference from Chris Reynolds, dated 11 November 2013, who had worked with you in the past. You had represented his organisation, One Step Communications, with professionalism and appropriate behaviour at all times. He would welcome you working with his team in the future. He described you as always polite. He had discussed the collision and resultant death of Ms Willmott. You were remorseful and had expressed sadness for it.
123 There was a reference from Marie Marchingo, dated 30 October 2013, who had known your family since 2000. She described you as a fine young man, a hard worker, polite and respectful of others. You were quiet and understated. The collision had changed you, reducing your confidence.
124 A reference from David Golmayer, dated 1 November 2013, who met you and your parents and family in 1993. In 2005 you assisted he and his partner with their cafe, giving your time to install security cameras, data outlets and lighting, without requesting payment. He described you as mature and responsible regarding the part you played in this collision. You had shown empathy and compassion.
125 A reference from Gary Shackleton, dated 10 October 2013, director of Shack Industries. He had known you and your family for over thirty-five years. He had seen you grow to be a young person, who was courteous and professional regarding your work ethics. You were a responsible, mature person and since this collision had become more reserved.
126 A reference from Sheree Mayfosh, dated 1 November 2013, who had known you all your life. You grew up together and holidayed together. She described you as part of her family. You were aware of the tragedy of this collision and you were visibly upset and distressed regarding your offending. She described you as a hard worker, a responsible and caring person. You were well respected in the community, with a lot of friends who supported you. You were remorseful for the tragic loss of life that resulted from your offending.
127 A reference from Alan Peach, dated 10 October 2013, who had known you through his capacity as principal of Myrniong Primary School. You were polite, reliable, friendly and of good character. You had an excellent work ethic, and a strong sense of right and wrong and described you as a very responsible young adult.
128 A reference from Ian Roberts, dated 20 October 2013, who had known your family for thirty years, regularly attending functions together. He described you as having a strong desire to learn, being responsible, intelligent and willing to listen. You are a quiet man, with a pragmatic, no-nonsense approach to life. Whilst he has not discussed the charges with you, he noticed you became quieter and withdrawn following your offending.
129 A reference from David Stoneman, dated 18 October 2013, foreman with Stowe Australia. His company employed you from May 2013 to your incarceration. Your qualities, he stated, were immediately recognised by management, and shortly after you commenced employment you were promoted to leading hand. He was in contact with you daily when you worked together. He described you as distressed and upset regarding the collision. You were well respected amongst the employees at Stowe Australia.
130 A reference from Daniel Starkle, dated 21 October 2013, who had known you for over three years, working with you in Ararat, Victoria, on an electrical project. He described you as having a capacity for hard work. He knew very little about this offending, however described you as a person who would listen to others, with a gentle nature and a willingness to help.
131 A reference from Bruce Elliott, dated 3 November 2013, who had known you for seven years. You worked alongside him under his supervision in the early years of your electrical career. He described you as displaying a professional, positive demeanour in relation to your work. You were employed by the JM Group as his first-year apprentice. You were well suited to the work and became an important and integral part of the company, and were promoted to leading hand for the earthworks at Ararat Prison.
132 A reference from Brian Ross, dated 21 October 2013, who had known you for approximately three years through your employment as an electrical subcontractor at the Hopkins Correctional Centre expansion project in Ararat. During the time he worked with you he found you to be conscientious and hardworking. You also got on well with fellow workers and management.
133 A reference from Warren Blackie, site foreman of JM Group Australia, dated 13 November 2013, who had known you since 2006 when you did work experience under his supervision at JM Group Australia. You were enthusiastic, which gained you an apprenticeship which you successfully completed in 2010. You were a well-respected member of the company, had a strong work ethic, were highly professional and respectful.
134 Two other witnesses gave evidence on your behalf. Graeme Layley, your uncle, who described you when you were a young child as shy and quiet. As you grew up, you came out of your shell and were involved in junior football. Following this collision, you had become withdrawn, lost weight and were extremely distraught. He was aware you had in your most recent employment been made a leading hand and said you interacted well with people and were courteous.
135 Bruce Elliott gave evidence. He had employed you in the past, having taken you on as a first year apprentice. He described you as one of their better apprentices, you were “A Grade” at the end of your fourth year. You had an excellent work ethic and he could not recall you ever having taken a “sickie”. You had been a reliable employee and he was aware of your most recent employment with Stowe.
136 Mr Nibbs submitted, based on all the material before me, that your prospects of rehabilitation were "high", relying on your lack of prior offending, in particular given the extensive amount of driving you would do in a year and lack of aggravating features of your offending. You had the support of family and friends, and had been employed for all your working life. You had a partner with whom you had a home and this was your first time in custody. The likelihood of you committing a similar offence or re-offending, he submitted, was remote.
137 I accept on the material before me that your rehabilitation prospects are very good.
138 Sensibly, Mr Nibbs conceded a term of imprisonment was the only appropriate sentencing disposition for your offending. He initially submitted your offending could be categorised as being at lowest end of the scale of gravity then amended that to "lower end" during the initial plea hearing. Mr Lewis conceded on behalf of the prosecution a "lower end" of criminality.
139 In my opinion, whilst there was clearly a number of aggravating features of the driving not present, the fact that you were driving in the dark at the speed you were travelling on the freeway involving other vehicles travelling at that same speed, you should have been far more alert than you were. In my opinion, your offending falls to the lower to mid range of seriousness.
140 Whilst Mr Nibbs urged a partially suspended sentence of imprisonment was appropriate, in the end I have to determine the appropriate sentence based on all the circumstances involved in your offending, of course taking into account matters personal to you, as well as relevant sentencing principles and statistics.
141 Whilst I accept your prospects of rehabilitation are very good, your rehabilitation prospects are only part of the sentencing process, albeit an important part. There are other considerations I must take into account when determining the appropriate sentence.
142 Ultimately, in my opinion, to partially suspend a term of imprisonment, which was urged upon me by Mr Nibbs, would not be adequate or appropriate in all the circumstances.
143 There are a number of victim impact statements before me. It is difficult to do justice to those statements in these brief sentencing remarks but I have read them. They are eloquent, and speak of the loss and devastation that has followed the premature death of Breanna Willmott. It is very hard for this court, or indeed anyone who has not been in the position of Ms Willmott’s family, to fully appreciate the grief felt by all affected by Breanna’s death. This grief has no doubt been to date and no doubt forever will be and I of course am aware that any sentence I impose will never in their opinion be long enough. Despite the absence of a victim impact statement from Ms Bewley that she will be also constantly reminded of the collision and death of her friend. Further, I accept she sustained injuries that she spoke of in her evidence before the jury.
144 Three of the statements were read into the transcript by the authors. Their pain is palpable and raw. They will forever be adversely affected by the offending of both of you.
145 There was a victim impact statement from Jennifer Willmott, Breanna’s mother. She said there were no words to describe the loss of a child. She held onto the thought that Breanna stood by her side every day. Breanna was adored by everyone she knew and made the family very proud. When police attended to advise them of her death, she was sure they had the wrong house, wrong person, wrong family. They were constantly reminded of the location of her death as they travel past it regularly. The reaction of Breanna’s brothers, Blake and Zak, to her death was “heartbreaking”. Their family was now incomplete. They were robbed of a future with Breanna not being able to celebrate significant milestones. The impact on Jennifer Willmott, her husband and her boys had been enormous.
146 They described looking after Stephanie Bewley before and also after the collision, because that is what Breanna would have wanted. She felt guilty their family life must continue in her absence.
147 There was a victim impact statement from Blake Willmott, Breanna’s youngest brother, and he described the great memories he had of Breanna. She was very generous and caring towards both he and his brother, Zac. When he heard of Breanna’s death, his head was spinning with anger, sadness and loss. Breanna’s death had upset all in the family.
148 There was a statement from Lorraine Gleeson, Breanna’s grandmother. Breanna was special as her first of her six grandchildren. She wondered how Breanna’s mother, father and two brothers were coping without Breanna. From her observations, Breanna’s mother and father were finding it hard to keep going without Breanna. It broke her heart she would never see Breanna again. She never imagined she would be saying goodbye to Breanna at Breanna’s funeral and that it would be forever.
149 There was a victim impact statement from Sandra Tucker, Breanna’s aunt and sister of Jennifer Willmott. She described the incredible bond between her children and her sister’s children, including Breanna. When Breanna had her own car, she would often call in for a chat and to see her cousins, and they adored Breanna. Breanna was a beautiful young lady you could always depend on.
150 In the two weeks before the collision, Breanna had obtained a full time job which she loved. Breanna was always in her thoughts. The collision and death of Breanna had completely destroyed her family. She described organising Breanna’s final farewell and the pain involved in that. She needed to bring Breanna justice and they spent a lot of time on the funeral plans. She felt she had to help her sister’s family and Breanna’s brothers work through it, yet also keep her own life going. She was afraid to leave Jennifer and her family.
151 Three years since the collision, their life seemed to be “crumbling around us”. She described the incredible bond between Breanna and Breanna’s grandmother and the difficulty her grandmother had with coming to grips with Breanna’s death. They would miss celebrating important family events with Breanna.
152 Ms Tucker still found it difficult to keep the whole family together. Passing the collision site at the time of the court hearing in particular had taken a huge toll on her daughter, Jess, and herself, but felt she needed to be at court for Breanna and her family.
153 The courts have referred to the need for social rehabilitation when dealing with victims of offences. In DPP v Toomey[2], Vincent JA referred to social rehabilitation citing DPP v DJK[3]. Allowing again for the difference in factual circumstances to the present case, His Honour referred to victim impact statements:
“With respect to those statements, I repeat comments that I have made as a sentencing judge on more than one occasion. They constitute a reminder of what might be described as the human impact of crime. They draw to the attention of the judge who would of necessity have to consider the possible and probable consequences of criminal behaviour, not only its significance to society in general but the actual effect of a specific crime upon those who have been intimately affected by it. The statements provide an opportunity for those whose lives are often tragically altered by criminal behaviour to draw to the court's attention the damage and sense of anguish which has been created and which can often be of a very long duration. For practical purposes, they may provide the only such opportunity. Obviously the contents of the statements must be approached with care and understanding. It is not to be expected that victims will be familiar with or even attribute significance to the many considerations to which a sentencing judge must have regard in the determination of a just sentence in the particular case. Nor would it normally be reasonable or practicable for a sentencing judge to explore the accuracy of the assertions made. Nevertheless, there has been an increasing level of appreciation by the courts of the value of victim impact statements. In my view they play an important role with respect to an aspect of the criminal law to which reference is not often made. They play their part in achieving what might be termed social and individual rehabilitation. Rehabilitation, in this sense, is not perceived from the perspective of the offender, but from that of those persons who have sustained loss and damage by reason of the commission of an offence.
[2][2006] VSCA 90
[3](2003) VSCA 109, paras 17 & 18
154 His Honour went on:
"This notion of social rehabilitation is one that I do not believe has been accorded anything approaching significant recognition as an identifiable underlying concern of the criminal justice system. It seems to me that the process of social and personal recovery which we attempt to achieve in order to ameliorate the consequences of a crime can be impeded or facilitated by the response of the courts. The imposition of a sentence often constitutes both a practical and ritual completion of a protracted painful period. It signifies the recognition by society of the nature and significance of the wrong that has been done to affected members, the assertion of its values and the public attribution of responsibility for that wrongdoing to the perpetrator. If the balancing of values and considerations represented by the sentence which, of course, must include those factors which militate in favour of mitigation of penalty, is capable of being perceived by a reasonably objective member of the community as just, the process of recovery is more likely to be assisted. If not, there will almost certainly be created a sense of injustice in the community generally that damages the respect in which our criminal justice system is held and which may never be removed. Indeed, from the victim's perspective, an apparent failure of the system to recognise the real significance of what has occurred in the life of that person as a consequence of the commission of the crime may well aggravate the situation."
155 The effects upon a victim are a relevant sentencing consideration, see s.5, Sentencing Act 1991. I am however conscious that I must not allow the effects upon a victim or victims to swamp the sentencing process and I very much keep that in mind.
156 Mr Lewis, in his sentencing submissions, referred to your licence suspension, Mr Dunkley-Price. You were approximately one month and eight days prior to the end of that suspension period, according to the prosecution, when the collision occurred. Ms Randazzo had previously stated you were eight days short of the conclusion of the period of suspension. Well, whether it be eight days or one month and eight days, is simply not to the point. You quite simply should not have been driving on this day. As I stated previously, had you complied with the suspension, this collision would not have occurred.
157 Regarding this offending having occurred whilst on a suspended sentence, I heard some submissions on this at the original plea hearing from both Ms Randazzo and Mr Lewis, and again on 28 November 2013.
158 Turning to cumulation, Mr Lewis referred me to the decision of Towle[4], paragraphs 93 and 94, referrable to Guariglia[5] and Solomon[6], both driving offences involving culpable driving and non-parole periods. Reference was made in Towle to the ordering in both cases of 50 per cent of the sentence on the second charge of culpable driving being served upon the first charge of culpable driving.
[4][2009] VSCA 280
[5](2010) 208 A Crim R 49 OR [2010] VSCA 343
[6](2002) 36 MVR 425
159 In Guariglia there were two charges of culpable driving and in Solomon there were also two charges of culpable driving.
160 At the further plea hearing on 28 November 2013, this was further addressed by Ms Randazzo, consistent with her written outline of submissions on this, and also by Mr Lewis. In my opinion, some cumulation is warranted, however as stated in a number of other authorities, sentencing is not simply just a mathematical exercise.
161 Each case is different and an order made regarding cumulation must take into account all matters relevant to the particular case before the court. I must determine the amount of cumulation that I regard as appropriate in the case of each of you.
162 Regarding your offending, Mr Dunkley-Price, Mr Lewis submitted on 28 November 2013 your offending was towards the higher end of gross negligence. He submitted yours was not a momentary lapse. Your level of negligence in stopping in the left-hand running lane, believing it to be the emergency lane, was towards the extreme. Further, you were, as submitted by Mr Lewis, stationary for a significant period of time in a 110 kilometres per hour zone at night. Further, driving whilst licence was suspended was an aggravating feature. In my opinion, the objective seriousness of your offending is high, even accepting the lack of other aggravating features often found in other driving cases.
163 Turning to you, Mr Stevenson, Mr Lewis conceded there were no aggravating features of your offending. Such was an appropriate concession based on the material, including the evidence before me.
164 Mr Lewis submitted regarding the objective seriousness of your offending, that it was not at the higher end. It was accepted by the prosecution you did not have a great length of time in which to make your decision to avoid Ms Willmott’s vehicle. He conceded your offending fell to the lower end of gravity. You were, however, on a freeway, a 110 kilometre per hour speed limit, at night, with an obligation to look out for potential obstacles on the road. The evidence also showed that there were no brakes applied by you just prior to the collision.
165 Turning to both of you and the level of risk or harm to other road users by your driving, this was 110 kilometre per hour zone, a freeway, at night or near night and an obligation of both of you to keep a vigilant outlook.
166 Turning to sentence, as well as matters personal to each of you, including your respective rehabilitation prospects as I find them to be, general deterrence is an important sentencing consideration for offences such as these. The authorities have repeatedly referred to offences such as this, with a paramount consideration being the need to deter other road users from driving in a similar way. The need for general deterrence in my opinion applies to both of you.
167 There is no doubt driving offences causing death and/or serious injury are regarded very seriously by the courts.
168 The offence of culpable driving is regarded as a species of involuntary manslaughter with a maximum of 20 years' imprisonment. Courts have frequently referred to the importance of general deterrence as a sentencing consideration.
169 In R v Gany[7] the court stated:
“This court has said on numerous occasions, frequently when dealing with offences of culpable driving and negligently causing injury, that those who put lives at risk through grossly negligent driving can expect to receive heavy penalties influenced by the sentencing principle of general deterrence.”
[7](2006) 163 A Crim R 322
170 In DPP v Hill[8]:
“Those who have the privilege of holding a drivers licence must ensure that they make decisions carefully and responsibly, because the failure to do so may have catastrophic consequences, including the death of others.”
[8][2012] VSCA 144
171 This list of cases is by no means exhaustive.
172 In the Second Reading Speech of the Crimes Amendment (Child Homicide Bill) on 6 December 2007, the then Attorney, Mr Hulls, referred to the increase in penalty of the offences of negligently causing serious injury and the offences of dangerous driving causing death or serious injury.
173 Regarding negligently causing serious injury, and the increase in maximum penalty from five to ten years, the Attorney stated:
“This will recognise the harm caused by the offender more adequately than the existing maximum penalty of five years. Many of the most serious negligently causing serious injury offences are connected with motor vehicle collisions. This fact gives rise to an unsatisfactory outcome if a single collision has resulted in death to one person, resulting in a charge of culpable driving which carries a maximum penalty of 20 years and serious injury to another, resulting in a charge of negligently causing serious injury, which carries a maximum penalty of only five years.
The Bill increases the maximum penalty for negligently causing serious injury to ten years' imprisonment. This places greater emphasis on the harm caused by the offence in line with the Government’s continuing commitment to road safety.”
174 Regarding dangerous driving causing death or serious injury:
“The offences of dangerous driving causing death or serious injury involve a lower degree of fault than the related offence of culpable driving causing death or negligently causing serious injury.
In order to clarify the hierarchy of these offences, the Bill will split the offence of dangerous driving causing death or serious injury into two offences. The penalty for dangerous driving causing death will be increased from five to ten years. The maximum penalty for dangerous driving causing serious injury will remain at five years.
This change places greater emphasis on the harm that is caused by the offence, and is consistent with the increase to the penalty for negligently causing serious injury.”
175 There is also an element of specific deterrence required when sentencing you, Mr Dunkley-Price, because you drove on this occasion whilst your licence was suspended, and you have a prior driving history, albeit for not the same type of offending that is currently before me. Specific deterrence is relevant when sentencing you. In relation to you, Mr Stevenson, you do not have any prior Court appearances, and as such specific deterrence need not loom large in the sentencing process.
176 When sentencing, I must also take into account the need to protect members of the community from both of you. I am particularly concerned in relation to you, Mr Dunkley-Price, because you do have prior court appearances and the circumstances surrounding this offending, and that whilst you may have believed that you were in the emergency lane, you very clearly were not.
177 There is also a need for just punishment and I am called upon by the Sentencing Act to manifest the community’s denunciation of your conduct and generally to impose a just sentence.
178 Turning to you, Mr Dunkley-Price.
179 On Charge 1, you are convicted and sentenced to 6 year, 6 months’ imprisonment.
180 On Charge 4, you are convicted and sentenced to 2 years' imprisonment.
181 On Summary Charge 5 of driving whilst your licence was suspended, you are convicted and sentenced to 4 months' imprisonment.
182 Charge 1 is the base sentence and I direct that 8 months of Charge 2 be served cumulatively upon Charge 1 and that 1 month of the Summary Charge be served cumulatively upon the base sentence.
183 For clarity, the orders for cumulation are cumulatively upon each other and upon the base sentence.
184 That results in a total effective sentence of 7 years and 3 months’ imprisonment, and I direct that you serve a period of 5 years and 3 months before you are eligible for parole.
185 Turning to you, Mr Stevenson.
186 On Charge 7, you are convicted and sentenced to 2 years and 2 months' imprisonment.
187 On Charge 9, you are convicted and sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment and I direct that 4 months of Charge 9 be served cumulatively upon Charge 7.
188 That results in a total effective sentence of 2 years and 6 months’ imprisonment, and I direct that you serve a period of 18 months before you are eligible for parole.
189 Pursuant to s.6AAA Sentencing Act, had you Mr Dunkley-Price pleaded not guilty to the summary charge of driving whilst suspended, and had been found guilty of that by jury verdict, I would have sentenced you to a term of imprisonment on that charge of 8 months and ordered cumulation of 4 months imposed on the sentences that I previously referred to. Obviously as it was a trial there is no other s6AAA that I need to declare.
190 Pursuant to s.89 Sentencing Act for the offences before me, it is mandatory your licences be cancelled. In your case, Mr Dunkley‑Price, you are disqualified from obtaining a licence for a period of 6 years from today's date. In your case, Mr Stevenson, your licence is cancelled for a period of 20 months from today's date.
191 In determining the appropriate period of cancellation in relation to the license, I am mindful of the observations of the Court in R v Franklin[9] and Lefebure[10], referable to rehabilitation prospects and their likely be assisted by you being able to drive.
[9]52 MVR 544
[10][2000] VSCA 79
192 Pursuant to s.18(4) Sentencing Act 1991, I declare that both you, Mr Stevenson and you Mr Dunkley-Price, have spent 81 days in custody up to and including yesterday, which was 15 December 2013, by way of pre-sentence detention, and I direct that this be entered into the records of the Court.
193 I just want to check all of those things. Is that right or not?
194 MR LEWIS: The only thing, Your Honour, is I've got 82 days pre-sentence detention.
195 HER HONOUR: Fine. 82, happy with that?
196 MR NIBBS: Yes, Your Honour.
197 HER HONOUR: If it is an increase then that is all right. Do you agree with that? 82?
198 MR McDONALD: Yes, Your Honour.
199 HER HONOUR: All right, so 81 becomes 82. Can you please make a note of that. 80 days in custody, up to and including 15 December, which was yesterday, by way of pre-sentence detention, and I direct that those 82 days be entered into the records of the court. Are there any other matters that require clarification?
200 MR LEWIS: No, Your Honour.
201 HER HONOUR: No?
202 MR NIBBS: No, Your Honour.
203 MR McDONALD: No, Your Honour.
204 HER HONOUR: Thank you. Remove the prisoners.
- - -
0
4
0