Director of Public Prosecutions v Hanson
[2022] VCC 2007
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA AT Melbourne CRIMINAL DIVISION | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
CR-22-00454
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| JASON ANTHONY HANSON |
---
JUDGE: | HIS HONOUR JUDGE MAIDMENT | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 3 November 2022 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 17 November 2022 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Hanson | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2022] VCC 2007 | |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject:Plea – sentencing
Catchwords: Dangerous driving causing death - dangerous driving causing serious injury - fail to rest for the minimum rest time - work for more than the maximum work time - fail to record required information in work diary
Legislation Cited:
Cases Cited:The Director of Public Prosecutions v Janson [2011] VSCA 19
Sentence:3 years and 10 months' imprisonment, 2 years and 4 months non-parole
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Director of Public Prosecutions | Ms K. Hamill | Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused at hearing For the Accused at sentence | Mr D. Rofe Ms D. Lamovie | Victoria Legal Aid |
HIS HONOUR:
1Jason Anthony Hanson, you have pleaded guilty to an indictment charging you with two charges of dangerous driving causing death, for which the maximum penalty is imprisonment for 10 years, and one charge of dangerous driving causing serious injury, for which the maximum penalty is five years.
2You have also asked me to take into account and have pleaded guilty to three related summary offences, all of which are contrary to the Heavy Vehicle National Law.
3The first is an offence of failing to rest for the minimum rest time, which is a critical risk breach. The maximum penalty for that is a fine of $15,000. The second is an offence of working for more than the maximum work time, which is a minor risk breach. The maximum penalty for that offence is a fine of $4,000. Thirdly, an offence of failing to record the required information in your work diary, for which the maximum penalty is a fine of $1,500.
4You have also admitted a prior criminal record. The offending revealed in that record is not of any significance in this case, save for the offence of recording false or misleading information in the work record for which you were fined $200 at the Mount Gambier Magistrates' Court on 21 August 2015. That is relevant to the breaches of the Heavy Vehicle National Law to which you have pleaded guilty in this case.
5The prosecution has tendered as Exhibit A in the proceedings a prosecution opening on plea which was read at your plea hearing. I do not propose to read the whole thing but I do propose to go through it in some detail because I think it is important to underscore some of the relevant facts which go not just to the seriousness of the offence, but to your moral culpability for the offending.
6On 14 September 2021, you were driving a 2018 Kenworth prime mover along the Western Highway near Dadswell's Bridge, when you failed to pay due care and attention and properly observe the road ahead for what the prosecution describe as a “prolonged” period, I will come to discuss that in more detail in due course. As a result you collided with a stationary Holden Commodore motor vehicle which was waiting to turn right into a marked rest area.
7The impact of the collision pushed the Holden into the path of a Toyota Corolla travelling in the opposite direction. The front passenger seat passenger of the Holden was Belinda Rametta. She was killed and the driver of the Holden was very seriously injured. The only occupant of the Toyota vehicle coming in the opposite direction was Helen Wanstall. She too was killed in the collision.
8
You held a multi-combination licence. You were employed by a transport company located in Mount Gambier, South Australia and you drove the Kenworth which towed two freightliner trailers. The combination is otherwise known as a
‘B-Double’.That truck and trailer combination is deemed to be a ‘fatigue-regulated heavy vehicle’ as defined by the Heavy Vehicle National Law. At the time of the collision you were driving basic fatigue management hours, which meant you could have a maximum of 14 hours' work time with seven continuous hours’ stationary rest time. There were also limits on the number of breaks that were required during the permitted continuous driving period.
9At the time of their deaths, Belinda Rametta was 42 years of age and Helen Wanstall was 71 years of age. And at the time of the collision Shaun Leggett, the driver of the Holden Commodore, was 36 years of age.
10The offending conduct occurred adjacent to the rest stop on the Western Highway known as the Golton rest stop, which is between Dadswell's Bridge and Horsham. The Western Highway is a main arterial linking Melbourne and Adelaide. At the collision site, the highway has a 100 kilometre per hour speed limit. It is a two-lane, two-way undivided road with a bitumen shoulder. The north-west or Horsham-bound lane where the initial collision occurred is 3.7 metres wide and the shoulder is 3.4 metres wide, providing sufficient room for a truck of the kind that you were driving to pass to the left of any vehicle that would have been turning into the rest area.
11The rest stop is one on the Melbourne-bound side of the road. It has two entrances. There is a dedicated left turn lane from the Melbourne-bound traffic to enter the rest stop. The Western Highway in the vicinity of the rest stop runs in an approximately south-easterly to north-easterly direction and is flat and straight. At the time of the offending the road was dry, the weather was fine and the visibility was good.
12
You commenced your shift at 8 am on 13 September in Adelaide and drove to Dandenong, arriving at 10.45 pm, Adelaide time. The following day you rested until 5.30 am and left Dandenong at 7.30 am, Melbourne time. You were travelling towards Horsham at the time of the collision. At about 11.50 am, you stopped at a service station in Stawell, where you purchased a coffee. Coincidentally,
Mr Shaun Leggett arrived at the same service station two minutes later, filled the Holden with fuel and purchased a drink. Mr Leggett and Ms Rametta left the service station, Horsham-bound, at noon and you left approximately one minute later.
13A driver of a vehicle towing a caravan along the Western Highway towards Horsham at the time of the collision was travelling along that road at about 90-95 kilometres per hour. He reached an overtaking lane about four kilometres before what became the collision site. The Holden overtook him as soon as the overtaking lane commenced. Around 10 seconds later you overtook the vehicle towing the caravan, but the truck took a long time to overtake and the vehicle towing the caravan had to slow to allow you to complete the overtaking manoeuvre.
14The collision occurred at about 12.20 pm. Mr Leggett, the driver of the Holden, had put on his right-turn indicator and had stopped near the second entrance to the rest stop where the collision occurred. Ms Wanstall, driving her Toyota motor vehicle, had left Horsham at around noon and was headed to Clunes. She was following her daughter, a Ms Xuereb, who was driving her car along the Western Highway away from Horsham. She apparently noticed the Holden stationary with its indicator on waiting to turn into the rest area and described the Holden as being stationary for a few seconds as she passed it.
15She saw your truck approaching behind the Holden and was concerned as to whether you were going to be able to slow down or stop. She could see no reason why you would not have been able to see the Holden stationary in the position where it was intending to turn into the rest stop.
16She described that, as she passed the Holden, she saw the truck driven by you swerve to the left at what she described as the last instant, and then felt a gush of air and heard it collide with the Holden.
17Another driver close to the scene at that time saw the brake lights of the truck driven by you illuminate after the collision. The essence of the prosecution case is that you had failed to keep a proper lookout and failed to see and slow down to allow the Holden to complete its turn into the rest stop, or failed to move onto the shoulder of the road to the left of the Holden to manoeuvre around it, as you could have done had you been paying proper attention.
18The front of your truck collided with the stationary Holden when you were travelling at between 82 and 97 kilometres per hour. The impact propelled the Holden forward and right into the oncoming traffic where it hit Ms Wanstall's vehicle traveling in the opposite direction. After the impact you applied emergency braking and the truck stopped some distance up the highway. You got out of the truck and made your way back to the collision site.
19By that time several other people had stopped at the collision site to render assistance including to extinguish a fire which was then engulfing the Toyota vehicle. They quickly ascertained that Ms Wanstall and Ms Rametta were deceased. They called emergency services and provided comfort to Ms Xuereb, the daughter of Ms Wanstall and to Mr Leggett. Mr Leggett remained trapped in the Holden until emergency services arrived.
20One of the other drivers in the vicinity who was assisting described you as visibly distressed. He asked whether you were all right and asked what had happened, as he had not seen the collision. You said to him, 'I was just having a sip of my coffee'.
21
Data from the airbag control module in the Holden recorded data for the
2.5 seconds prior to impact. During that period, the Holden had undertaken braking and had slowed down from 4.8 kilometres per hour to zero one second prior to the impact. The truck and trailer combination that you were driving weighed 57 tonnes. There is no evidence to suggest that the truck braked prior to impact. The first evidence of braking was skid marks on the road starting 18 metres from the area of the impact. The truck you were driving came to a stop approximately 104 metres from the first point of impact.
22The truck and the Holden motor vehicle were examined by a mechanical investigator. The examination did not reveal any mechanical faults, failures or conditions with the truck combination which would have caused or contributed to the collision.
23Mr Leggett, the driver of the Holden Commodore, was unable to be extracted from the Commodore for some time and went into cardiac arrest, requiring 15 minutes of CPR and adrenalin to be administered. He was then transported to Melbourne for treatment, ultimately being admitted to the Austin Hospital. Investigations discovered he had sustained: firstly, bilateral subdural haematomas and traumatic sub arachnoid haemorrhage; secondly, rib fractures, the collapsing of both lungs with bleeding into the lungs; thirdly, fracture of the T11 vertebrae and bleeding into the abdominal cavity; fourthly, fractures on both sides of the pelvis; and fifthly, significant spinal cord damage.
24He required resuscitation and the insertion of a tube to assist with breathing. He had suffered a significant closed head injury with loss of memory before and after the collision, brainstem infarct, vocal cord injury and mid-thoracic complete permanent paraplegia. He was later admitted to Royal Talbot Rehabilitation Centre.
25
Analysis of your diary and the GPS records for your truck showed that you had worked 14.25 hours in the 24-hour period between 6 am on 13 September and
6 am on 14 September, that is 15 minutes more than the maximum work time permitted. That underpins the charge of working longer than permitted. The data also revealed that you did not take a seven-hour continuous rest break between the 13th and 14 September 2021; instead you concluded your shift at 10.45 pm on 13 September and re-started your truck at 4 am, equating to five hours and 15 minutes continuous rest.
26
You turned off your truck again at 4.45 am on 14 September and rested for
45 minutes before restarting and moving your truck. That underpins the summary charge to which you pleaded guilty of resting for less than the minimum rest time. Your work diary did not record this period accurately and stated you had commenced work at 6 am on 14 September, which would have equated to seven hours, 15 minutes continuous rest. That underpins the related summary offence to which you pleaded guilty of failing to record information in your work diary.
27You were seen by first responding officers at the scene who secured your work diary. A preliminary breath test showed you had no alcohol in your system and later blood tests confirmed that finding and also indicated that you did not have any illicit drugs in your system. You were cautioned and asked to give an account of the collision. You said that you went to put your coffee in the coffee cup holder and then the collision occurred. You said you did not know how it happened and that you did not see the Holden prior to the collision.
28You were later arrested and formally interviewed at the Horsham police station. During the interview you stated that you had been a truck driver for about seven years. From about mid-2020 you had only driven that particular truck. You travelled regularly on that highway every two to three days and acknowledged that the road is fairly straight with no bends and you could get a good view from a long way away. You acknowledged that that day was very clear and sunny. You explained that you were travelling west on the Highway drinking coffee, listening to music and trying to pay attention to the road.
29You took your eyes off the road to glance down for 'probably less than a second … but perhaps a little bit longer than that’ to make sure your coffee cup was going into the cup holder properly and when you looked back at the road, you saw two cars in front of you, slammed the brakes on and the coffee went everywhere. I note in passing that it is clear your suggestion that there were two cars in front of you is plainly wrong and is indicative of your failure to keep a proper lookout whilst driving that heavy vehicle. It is plain from the evidence that there was one car in front of you, the Holden waiting to turn right, and that the other vehicle driven by Ms Wanstall was travelling in the opposite direction.
30In the course of the interview you were asked whether you had been drinking the coffee or just moved the cup from your mouth at the time of the collision. It was pointed out to you that the spilled coffee had not been observed on or near the coffee cup holder. You said that you did not think that you were drinking the coffee at that time. You said that prior to the collision you had come out of the Stawell rest area and had overtaken the caravan, which is consistent with the evidence of the driver of the vehicle towing the caravan, and that you had done so in the overtaking lane. You maintained that you did not see the cars before you hit them, but could not explain why.
31You suggested that they may have been coming out of the parking bay - in other words, the rest stop - at the time of the collision and were looking to go back into it, because after the collision a woman was screaming for her mother. That is clearly a reference to Ms Xuereb, who was driving in front of her mother in the opposition direction to your driving. You thought, according to what you told the police, that she had only just come out of the rest bay.
32You were able to explain that the parking bay had two entrances or exits and that you believed that both vehicles that had suffered damage in the collision had been travelling in the same direction as you and were both stopped or slowing down waiting, one behind the other to go into the rest bay. I say again that that seems to me to indicate clearly that you had not been paying proper attention for some time. The prosecution adopted the term, 'prolonged'. It seems to me that that is apt in the circumstances as an assessment of the time during which you were not paying attention.
33If you had been paying attention, firstly, you would have seen the Holden slowing down, you would have seen the Holden ahead of you, and you would have been conscious of the Holden and conscious of the need to keep a vigilant lookout for any movement that the Holden might make that differed from the regular speed at which it had been travelling along the highway.
34Secondly, you would have seen that there was only one vehicle seeking to turn right, rather than two and would not have been suggesting that there had been any movement of either of those vehicles from the rest area prior to the collision, rather the movement of only the Holden towards the rest area, which you should have seen clearly had you been paying attention.
35The precise time during which you were failing to pay attention cannot be assessed. The only reliable indicator is the record of the Holden airbag system which suggested that you must have been inattentive for at least 2.5 seconds. But it is clear from the whole of the evidence that the period of your inattention must have been very considerably longer than that. It is impossible to put an exact figure upon it, but I think the prosecution use of the term ‘prolonged period’ is apt in all the circumstances.
36During your interview with the police you went on to acknowledge that under basic fatigue management hours the maximum period that you could work in the 24-hour period was 14 hours with the minimum seven-hour continuous rest. You clearly were aware of the requirements of the Heavy Vehicle National Law which you failed to observe. You claimed not to have suffered any fatigue prior to the collision. There is no evidence of you being fatigued. Those Heavy Vehicle National Laws are there for a very good reason: to ensure as far as reasonably possible that drivers of vehicles such as you were driving are not fatigued. Whilst you may not have felt fatigued it cannot be ruled out that there was some overlay of fatigue as a result of the failure to take the minimum seven-hour continuous rest, prior to the collision.
37
However, I make no formal finding of aggravation in this case based on actual fatigue. I could not find that beyond reasonable doubt. But I note the fact that the incident occurred after a period during which you failed to take the minimum
seven hour continuous rest.
38You were asked about discrepancies between your logbook and the truck's GPS and you denied having moved your truck at 4 am. You said that you had started the truck early to build up air in one of the trailers, because it had a leaky airbag, but you didn't think that it was that early. You later said that you had been parked in front of a driveway overnight and that you had to move the truck to enable access to the driveway. It may be that it is that which explains the movement of the truck during that rest period. But it is plain that your rest period was interrupted after five hours and 15 minutes of continuous rest.
39It is noteworthy that the matter resolved as a plea of guilty at an early stage and that there is very significant utilitarian value in your plea of guilty. The prosecution also tendered two victim impact statements. One is authored by Michelle Xuereb, the daughter of Ms Wanstall, who as I have indicated was travelling in her vehicle a little ahead of Ms Wanstall at the time of the collision. In it she says:
‘I have a pain at the back of my head, my brain feels like it has stopped working but my mind keeps running. It makes me so tired. I wish it was different.
‘I cared for my Mum. I liked caring for her.
‘I know I won't get her back; sometimes smell her. I fear how long it will be until I am with her again.
‘I can't unsee what I have seen, it doesn't go away. My chest is heavy, it gets hard to breathe. I knew it was going to happen. I remember closing my eyes, the debris flying over my car, the fire, my Mum, her hand, the noise. People.’
40The second victim impact statement is that of the driver of the Holden motor vehicle, Shaun Leggett. And in part he says this:
‘The tragic event that has changed my life. The loss of my partner Belinda is unbearable [that is his partner who was killed in the passenger seat of his vehicle as a result of your driving], mentally I’m a mess dealing with grief over losing her and the future we have planned.
‘The impact of my life as father to my 4-year-old boy has dramatically changed, not being able to pick him up for a hug, not being able to look after and play with him in the way that I wish I could do. Having to learn how to do so after the injury has taken a massive impact on my mental health and body’s mobility.
‘Hours of my day are now taken up by the routine I have to do as a spinal patient. This reduces the time I can spend time with my boy. The mental toll of having to constantly explain to my child what has happened to his dad and why dad can’t do a lot of things has had a dramatic impact on me.
‘I’m now a T11-12 complete spinal patient, this means I have lost all feeling to my lower body. I have no leg function, no bowel or bladder control, and what use to take 30 minutes to shower and get dressed etc now take up to 3 hrs.’
41He goes onto describe having to transfer to a commode and shower and dry himself, and constantly having bowel and urine accidents because he cannot feel anything in that part of his body. And dealing with the continuing impact of pain that he suffers, his damaged face and a life as a spinal patient. I will not go on to read the full content, but it is of a similar vein.
42Dealing now with your personal circumstances and matters put on your behalf, I was provided by your counsel with written submissions dated 31 October 2022, which is Exhibit 1 on the plea hearing. I was also provided with the psychological report of Dr Karen Scally dated 26 October 2022, which is Exhibit 2, a letter from Rachel Lees your partner or former partner, a letter from Josephus Muskee and a letter from Ian Dwyer dated 24 October 2022. Those are Exhibits 5, 6 and 7 respectively on the plea hearing. I was also provided with assessments of your two children by experts showing the difficulties that they face from an educational and life point of view.
43In the case of your daughter, she suffers from ADHD and autistic spectrum disorder. She is now eight years old. Your six-year-old son has significant learning difficulties and mild intellectual disability. Your counsel pointed out that the letters of reference to which I have referred and the report of Dr Scally underpin the proposition that you are deeply remorseful for your conduct.
44He invites me to take that into account but also that you were cooperative with police, that you made admissions to the extent that you were able to do so and that, as Dr Scally points out in her report, as a result of the collision you suffer from post traumatic stress disorder. Also on a more long-term basis, you have suffered from interpersonal anxiety, interpersonal submissiveness and dependency, impaired social functioning and impaired insight into your own emotional functioning.
45
Dr Scally opines that it would make it extremely difficult for you to cope with a term of imprisonment. Your counsel invites me to apply a principle known as
VerdinsPrinciple No. 5, which is concerned with custody weighing more heavily upon you as a result of the mental impairments to which I have referred. I accept that proposition and I do not take it that the prosecution has sought to argue against that.
46Your counsel points out that this is your first time in custody. He invites me to conclude that your prior convictions are not of substantial significance and most of them are a long time ago. He also invites me to conclude that you have good prospects of rehabilitation. I accept that submission. Underpinning that submission, he points out that you have a strong work history. Again, I accept that.
47The matter has been hanging over your head for a significant period of time now. It has had an effect on your relationship with your partner. You have chosen to move out of the family home and live with your mother with a view to reducing the impact of your inevitable term of imprisonment upon your two children. It seems to me that this is sensible and sensitive to their needs. The strength of the continuing relationship with your partner (the mother of the children) is not quite clear to me. That no doubt will be something that will bear heavily upon you during your period in incarceration, and also your inability to be a breadwinner for your family during that period. I take that into account.
48You were not blessed with a happy family life as you were growing up. You did not know your biological father until approximately two years ago when you met him for the first time. It seems that he has been supportive of you, particularly since the matters that bring you before the court here. It is to your credit that, despite that difficult upbringing and a not particularly satisfactory education, you settled into a good work record and ultimately got away from the influence of negative peers. You settled down to a largely law-abiding and productive life. All of that underscores the conclusion that I have reached that you do indeed have good prospects of rehabilitation.
49It is of course significant that in these COVID times you have pleaded guilty to these offences and you deserve full credit for doing so and saving the State and the victims and their associated friends and relatives from the difficult emotional response likely to be occasioned by a jury trial. I give you full credit and I intend to reduce the sentence that I would otherwise have imposed as a result of your pleas of guilty for all of those reasons.
50I take into account that there are still restrictions within the prison system arising from the COVID pandemic which will make your period of incarceration, at least for the foreseeable future, more onerous than would otherwise have been. I regard the offending here as of mid-range seriousness. It was urged that I should conclude that it was below mid-range, albeit as your counsel put it, not to a significant degree. It seems to me that it falls within the mid-range. Your moral culpability has to be assessed in a more nuanced way.
51There is no suggestion that there was any deliberate act on your part or that you did any of the things which the case law has suggested are aggravating features, such as driving in excess of the speed limit, or being intoxicated or erratic, or driving aggressively. That kind of aggravating feature is totally absent here.
52However, you well knew the nature of the vehicle you were driving. You were very familiar with it. You were very familiar with the road that you were driving along and the road was, as you acknowledged in your interview with police, straight and there was good visibility. There is no excuse for failing to observe the risks of collision arising from a vehicle stationary in the lane which you were travelling, waiting to turn right into the rest stop.
53The period of inattention was significant in my opinion and it requires an assessment of your moral culpability as being reasonably high in those circumstances, despite the absence of the other aggravating features of the kind that I have just referred to. I was referred both by your counsel and counsel for prosecution to a number of cases and matters that were dealt with by the Court of Appeal in this State which assist in identifying current sentencing practice, and assist in assessing an appropriate sentence in this case.
54
One of the cases to which I was referred by both parties was
The Director of Public Prosecutions v Janson,for which the media neutral citation is [2011] VSCA 19. In that case the Court heard an appeal by the Director of Public Prosecutions against a sentence imposed by this court. The matter arose shortly after the Parliament of Victoria had increased the maximum penalty from 5 years to 10 years for the offence of dangerous driving causing death. It involved the driver of a heavy goods vehicle, albeit not a B-Double, but nevertheless a substantially-sized vehicle, driving through a red light and killing people and seriously injuring others. As the driver approached the traffic lights, he had between 9.8 and 10.8 seconds to respond to the change of the lights from green to red at a speed of 70 kilometres per hour.
55Justice of Appeal Nettle (as he then was), at paragraph 18 of the judgment of the Court, said:
‘As I see it, any reasonable driver in the position of the respondent would be bound to realise that to drive such a vehicle in that manner involved a serious breach of the proper management or control of the vehicle, that it was potentially dangerous to others who, as members of the public, might at the time be upon or in the vicinity of the roadway, and that it created a considerable risk of serious injury or death to members of the public which significantly exceeded the risk ordinarily associated with being on or near a highway.'
56He went onto say:
'In the circumstances of this case, the respondent’s lapse of attention of some 10 seconds’ duration amounted to a most remarkable failure to keep a proper lookout, and the nature and gravity of the respondent’s offending are to be assessed accordingly.’
57Although one cannot put a precise figure on the “prolonged” period of inattention to which this sentencing consideration relates, it is of a similar general nature to the one that His Honour Justice of Appeal Nettle was describing.
58His Honour also said, at paragraph 35, dealing with the need for the Court to give proper weight to general deterrence:
'… it would not have been open to treat general deterrence as less important simply because the offences were the consequence of unthinking negligence. Subject to proportionality and other relevant considerations, general deterrence is an important sentencing consideration in all cases of dangerous driving causing death.'
59He was seeking to contrast the situation of deliberate decisions to flout road laws as distinct from the consequence of “unthinking negligence”. To the extent that those comparators apply to you, this was a case of unthinking negligence, as distinct from a deliberate decision to flout the road laws.
60So, it is important that I give proper weight to general deterrence. Clearly, your conduct needs to be denounced in strong terms by this court. Further, you need to be punished adequately for your offending. Individual deterrence must play some part, although general deterrence is a more significant sentencing factor.
61I need to consider your good prospects of rehabilitation. But I need to balance that against the other sentencing considerations in determining an appropriate sentence.
62I have been greatly assisted by both counsel in their references to other cases said to give some assistance in determining an appropriate sentence. And I have had regard to those sentences and reasons for sentence and submissions by counsel.
63Doing the best I can to balance all of those factors, I am now ready to pass sentence upon you, Mr Hanson.
64Jason Anthony Hanson, on Charge 1 of dangerous driving causing the death of Linda Rametta, you are convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for two years and 10 months. You are also disqualified from driving or holding a driver's licence and any licences you have are cancelled for a period of two years from today.
65On Charge 2 of dangerous driving causing the death of Helen Wanstall, you are convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for two years and 10 months and disqualified from driving or holding a licence and your licences are cancelled for a period of two years commencing today.
66On Charge 3 of dangerous driving causing serious injury to Shaun Leggett, you are convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for a term of 17 months and your licences are cancelled and you are disqualified from holding or obtaining a licence for a period of two years from today.
67The sentence on Charge 1 is the base sentence. I order that 10 months of the sentence on Charge 2 and two months of the sentence on Charge 3 be served cumulatively upon one another and upon the sentence of two years and 10 months on Charge 1, making a total effective sentence of imprisonment for three years and 10 months.
68I order that you serve a period of two years and four months before being eligible for parole.
69That is designed to give the effect to the submission that you have good prospects of rehabilitation. It is designed to encourage your further rehabilitation through a substantial period on parole.
70But for your pleas of guilty I would have sentenced you to imprisonment for a period of six years with a non-parole period of four years.
71I declare 16 days of pre-sentence detention as time to be reckoned as served on the sentence that I have imposed and deducted administratively. I order that those facts be noted in the records of the court.
72So far as the three related summary offences are concerned:
- on Summary Charge 4 of resting for less than the minimum rest time, you are convicted and fined $2,000;
- on Summary Charge 6 of working for more than the maximum time, you are convicted and fined $500;
- on Summary Charge 7 of failing to record your required information in your work diary, you are convicted and fined $500.
73Are there any other matters, counsel?
74COUNSEL: No, Your Honour.
75HIS HONOUR: No, thank you.
76MS HAMILL: The only matter I wanted to raise before Your Honour adjourns is that I understand that there are some media who are attending via Webex.
77HIS HONOUR: Yes.
78MS HAMILL: As I did on the last occasion, I don't know if they're the same media representatives, but Your Honour will recall that Ms Rametta's family had expressed a strong desire that her name not be used in any report in relation to this matter.
79HIS HONOUR: I'm sure that the media who are listening will treat that matter with due respect.
80MS HAMILL: Yes, Your Honour, and I note that they did on the last occasion.
81HIS HONOUR: Yes, thank you.
- - -
2