Director of Public Prosecutions v Jayasinghe, Shyam
[2012] VCC 2033
•7 December 2012
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION
Case No. CR-12-00072
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| SHYAM JAYASINGHE |
---
JUDGE: | HER HONOUR JUDGE THORNTON | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 26 November 2012 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 7 December 2012 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Jayasinghe, Shyam | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2012] VCC 2033 | |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Catchwords: Criminal law – sentence – plea of guilty – dangerous driving causing death – speeding at between 100 -110 kph in a 60 kph zone
Sentence: 3 years’ imprisonment – non-parole period of 18 months’ imprisonment
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the DPP | Mr K. Gilligan | Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Offender | Mr I. Hill QC and Ms J. Gleeson | Wisewould Solicitors |
HER HONOUR:
Plea
1 Shyam Jayasinghe, you have pleaded guilty to one charge of dangerous driving causing death[1] at Dandenong on 15 March 2011.
[1]Crimes Act 1958, s319.
Maximum Penalty
2 The maximum penalty for this offence is 10 years' imprisonment and there is a mandatory minimum licence cancellation of 18 months.[2]
[2]Sentencing Act 1991, s.89.
Circumstances of the Offending
3 Through your counsel you agreed with the facts of the offending which were tendered by the prosecution and read in court. Those facts form the basis of this sentence.[3]
[3]Exhibit A dated 26 October 2012. A scanned copy of the Prosecution Opening is attached as Appendix 1.
4 Briefly, on 15 March 2011 at approximately 7.45 p.m. you were driving alone in your Honda sedan when it was involved in a fatal collision on the Princes Highway at Dandenong. You were travelling in the middle lane of the three lane highway travelling towards Dandenong in a south‑easterly direction when the front of your car collided with the passenger side of a Toyota sedan that was making a right‑hand turn in front of your car. The driver of that car was Hamed Hussaini who died at the scene as a result of injuries he sustained in the collision. He was aged 32 with a wife and one child who is now aged 5.
5 The collision occurred just west of Dandenong and there is provision for three lanes of traffic travelling in either direction with a grassed median strip and a service road on both sides of the highway. The highway at that point runs in a south‑east/north‑west direction.
6 The deceased was driving away from Dandenong and was in the process of making a right‑hand turn from the north‑west carriage of the Princes Highway into Henty Street when the collision occurred. The collision occurred in the left lane of the south‑east carriageway adjacent to the commencement of Henty Street.
7 The speed limit applicable to that section of the Princes Highway was 60 kilometres per hour. The section of road on which the collision occurred is straight with a slight downhill gradient. The crest of a hill is approximately 100 metres west of the collision scene. The road surface was dry, in good condition, the weather warm and dry and it was a clear evening.
8 The collision was witnessed by a number of people and one witness in particular who was not travelling very fast at the time, intending to turn into the service lane just after Henty Street, observed the deceased turning from the middle of the highway in what she thought looked like a U‑turn. When she first saw the deceased's car she thought he had plenty of time to perform that manoeuvre but she then saw two cars in her rear vision mirror travelling very fast behind her. One car was in the right lane and the other car was in the middle lane. The car in the right lane was a Ford and the car in the middle lane was your car.
9 The witness described the cars going past her like a flash and she saw the impact with your car but the Ford did not stop at the collision scene.
10 Another witness saw your car being driven at high speed prior to the collision and he was seated in a restaurant facing the Princes Highway. This restaurant is on the opposite side of the crest of the hill to Henty Street and the intersection of the Princes Highway and Henty Street cannot be viewed from the restaurant.
11 The attention of this witness was drawn to the Ford car which he heard with a modified exhaust and saw it travelling at a speed which he estimated between 80 to 90 kilometres per hour and then heard it accelerate. He also saw your car in the middle lane whilst the Ford was in the right lane in front of you. He observed the cars going over the crest of the hill and then out of his view. He then heard the sound of skidding and the crash and ran to the scene.
12 Another witness who was in the skate park on the southern side of the Princes Highway was on the city side of the crest of the hill before Henty Street. He was a 17‑year old part‑time motor mechanic. Hearing the sound of a car on the highway he looked up and saw a red Ford in the right lane travelling towards Dandenong and he estimated its speed at 95 to 100 kilometres per hour and speeding up. He observed your car travelling at about 80 to 90 kilometres per hour about half a car length back from the Ford and accelerating. He observed both cars go over the hill towards Dandenong still accelerating and almost side by side as they went over the hill. At that time he estimated the speed of the Ford at 105 kilometres per hour and the speed of the Honda at between 90 to 100 kilometres per hour. Soon after the cars went over the hill he heard the sound of a crash.
13 An expert in accident reconstruction, Senior Constable Janelle Mehegan, used data she gathered from the collision scene in mathematical equations to determine the pre‑impact speed of your vehicle. You also engaged the services of an expert to calculate the pre‑impact speed of your vehicle and because of the differences between those experts' conclusions, the police engaged the services of an American expert.
14 Ultimately it was agreed between the parties that the pre‑impact speed of your vehicle was 100 to 110 kilometres per hour. Had you been travelling at 60 kilometres per hour in compliance with the speed limit the collision would not have occurred.
Victim Impact Statement
15 A victim impact statement completed by the wife of the deceased was read to the court and tendered.[4] Marzia Hussaini, the wife of the deceased, outlined that she is 24 and lives with her 5‑year old son. She met her husband in 2004 when she was 16 in a refugee camp in Pakistan. They have both fled the war in Afghanistan with their families and they married in Pakistan in 2005. Her husband came to Australia in 2008 and she and her son arrived in 2010. She described how her husband worked very hard, 7 days a week, as a renderer to support them and that he loved his family very much.
[4]Exhibit C.
16 He had rung her at about 6.30 p.m. on the day of your offending, asking her if she wanted anything and saying that he was coming home early. She waited for 3 hours, rang him many times, and eventually telephoned the police because she feared that something had happened to him. The police later arrived at her home and told her that her husband had been killed in a car accident.
17 She outlined how your crime has affected her physically, emotionally, socially and financially. She has become anxious and fearful using public transport and being on the roads and continues to grieve for the loss of her husband whom she regards as the love of her life.
18 She feels particularly alone because she has no family or friends in Australia and has lost the support of her husband's family. She and her son have been forced to move into a small unit and she has become dependent on a pension. She has become financially insecure and remains fearful for the future of her son who continues to ask when his father will be coming home. She remembers her husband as a caring, loving and kind person.
Your Personal Circumstances
19 You are 28, born in England of Sri Lankan parents, and have one younger sister who is a doctor completing her internship at Southwest Healthcare in Warrnambool. Your family returned to Sri Lanka when you were aged 3 and you were educated there to secondary school level.
20 Your girlfriend came to Australia and you followed her in February 2008. You undertook tertiary education here and in the United Kingdom, obtaining a Masters Degree in International Business from Monash University in Melbourne.
21 You have been in full‑time employment since 2010 as a sales representative with Katoomba Trading Pty Ltd.[5] You are also working part‑time in a Hawthorn restaurant.
[5]Exhibit 5.
22 You have held a Sri Lankan driver's licence since 2002 and obtained your Victorian licence in 2010 and, as part of your employment, drive approximately 500 kilometres per week. You have no prior convictions, no subsequent matters or any matters pending and numerous references attesting to your good character and genuine remorse. [6]
[6]Ibid.
23 Your vehicle was mechanically inspected after the collision and found to be roadworthy prior to the accident.
24 You have very strong family support and your parents have travelled from Sri Lanka for every court hearing.
25 You have also been involved in developing a Facebook group to promote safe driving in Australia and commenced weekly counselling with psychologist Dr Peter Elliott shortly after the collision. You still consult him and he is of the opinion that you continue to suffer the symptoms of post‑traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, stress and depression and that you are in need of ongoing counselling.
26 In June and November 2012 you attended forensic psychologist Mr Patrick Newton for a psychological assessment.[7] He reported that you are continuing to suffer anxiety for both your actions and, importantly, the impact of Mr Hussaini's death on his family. Mr Newton has described your significant remorse and regret for your conduct and that you developed a deep emotional response to the accident, continuing to suffer severe distress. He reported that there is a genuine risk of relapse to trauma and/or the development of other serious psychological problems unless you continue with appropriate treatment.
[7]Exhibit 1 dated 10 November 2012.
27 Psychologist Dr Peter Elliott reported[8] that you have had 57 counselling sessions since April 2011 for symptoms of post‑traumatic stress and that you were extremely affected by the realisation that the death of the other driver had left a woman without a partner and a child without a father.
[8]Exhibit 2 dated 12 November 2012.
28 You have also attended the Road Trauma Support Services Victoria for 8 counselling sessions shortly after the collision and participated in the first support group for drivers involved in a fatality in October 2012. Counsellor Lynne Irving reported that you have symptoms commensurate with a post‑traumatic stress response and that you had reported overwhelming feelings of sadness and identification with the grief and loss of the family of the deceased. She reported that you live every day with the repercussions of this devastating event, not only for yourself but with the utmost awareness of the impact on others.[9]
[9]Exhibit 4 dated 7 November 2012.
29 Your counsel conceded that principles of general deterrence dictated that a term of 3 years’ imprisonment was warranted but submitted that a partially suspended term of imprisonment with a period of 12 months to be served would be within range having regard to the mitigating factors outlined in written submissions on the plea.
30 Your counsel also referred me to a recent decision of the Chief Judge of this court in DPP v. Polizzi [2012] VCC 1811, suggesting that this case represented the start of the range, and the case of Howton [2012] VSCA 281, the top of the range. He submitted that your offending falls somewhere between those two cases.
31 The prosecution conceded that specific deterrence was not relevant and that you have good prospects of rehabilitation but emphasised that this was a grossly excessive speed, between 40 to 50 kilometres per hour over the limit, submitting that the offence was in the mid to high range. The prosecution submitted that the speed amounted to deliberate conduct with potential to endanger others in circumstances where the driving commenced uphill and the road over the hill was not visible.
32 The prosecution submitted that general deterrence was significant because of the speed and that a range of between 3 and 5 years’ imprisonment for a head sentence with a non‑parole period of between 2 and 3 years’ imprisonment was the appropriate range.
33 The prosecution also distinguished the case of Polizzi because of the particular circumstances of that intersection combined with momentary inattention of the driver in that case where moral culpability was low.
Further Sentencing Considerations
34 The maximum penalty of 10 years' imprisonment is an indication of the seriousness of the offence as prescribed by Parliament. The purposes for which a court may impose sentence are punishment to an extent and in a manner which is just in all the circumstances, deterrence both specific and general, rehabilitation, denunciation and/or protection of the community.
35 In sentencing you I must have regard to a range of matters such as the seriousness of the offence, your culpability, your personal circumstances and those of the victims. General deterrence must be reflected for this type of offending involving speed. A sentence requiring immediate imprisonment will usually be appropriate unless the offender has a low level of moral culpability as in the case of momentary inattention or misjudgement.[10]
[10]DPP v Neethling [2009] VSCA 116.
36 The death of Hamed Hussaini has had a life changing impact upon his wife and child. The emotional loss for them is immeasurable. They are both now being supported by the Government on financial benefits because they were dependent on the deceased. No sentencing disposition will assuage their grief.
37 There are currently no sentencing statistics to inform current sentencing practices for this offence. I have considered a folder of material which was helpfully prepared by your counsel referencing a number of cases involving the offence of dangerous driving causing death and serious injury. The circumstances of each of those cases are distinguishable and no two cases are ever the same. I have noted that in particular the cases of DPP v Janson [2011] VSCA 19 and DPP v. Neethling [2009] VSCA 116 were prosecution appeals where principles of double jeopardy applied.
38 From 19 March 2008 the maximum penalty for this offence increased from 5 to 10 years’ imprisonment and the cases must be read in that context.
39 In the case of Pesa[11] the maximum penalty was 5 years' imprisonment and after two trials there was a finding that the 21‑year old applicant had not expressed remorse or acceptance of responsibility for accelerating through an intersection after the traffic light turned red killing one person and seriously injuring another. Some of the mitigating factors accepted were that he had genuine sympathy for those who were hurt, delay and principle 5 of Verdins case[12] that imprisonment would be more burdensome than a person in normal health. In that case the applicant had an impeccable driving history and was not affected by alcohol or illicit drugs. That case must be viewed in the context of the lower maximum penalty which applied.
[11]Pesa v R [2012] VSCA 109.
[12]R v Verdins [2007] VSCA 102 at [32].
40 In the cases of Rooke v. R [2011] VSCA 49 and Rodi v. The Queen [2011] VSCA 48, after a trial, the applicants were sentenced for being involved in a race and the maximum penalty applicable was again 5 years' imprisonment. Mr Rooke had a relevant prior history of speeding and had been seriously injured in the collision and Verdins principles were enlivened. The applicants were driving at between 114 and 126 kilometres per hour on a road with an 80 kilometre per hour speed limit. Mr Rodi's sentence reflected the impact of the delay in depriving him of the possibility of a Juvenile Justice disposition, his difficult family circumstances and his youth.
41 These cases are all distinguishable but in particular the maximum penalty was only 5 years' imprisonment.
42 A case where the maximum penalty applicable was the same as your case was the recent case of Howton v. R [2012] VSCA 281, which is also distinguishable on the facts, plea and personal circumstances. In that case the applicant was a professional truck driver who sustained significant injuries in the collision and had a prior conviction for dangerous driving and other offences.
43 You have pleaded guilty, are without prior convictions and have an unblemished driving record. You also have driven as part of your employment and estimate that you drive approximately 500 kilometres per week.
44 I am guided by the principles outlined by the Court of Appeal in Neethling's case at paragraph 30 where the court referred to the principles enunciated by Neave JA in the DPP v. Oates[13] and stated:
[13][2007] VSCA 59.
1. General deterrence must be given considerable weight in sentencing an offender for dangerous driving causing death.
2. Where a person kills another while driving dangerously that person is likely to receive a significant term of imprisonment.
3. The sentence which is imposed must take account of variations in the moral culpability of the person responsible.
4. A custodial sentence will usually be appropriate for this offence except in cases where the offender's level of moral culpability is low."
45 The Court of Appeal also enunciated a series of factors which may aggravate the seriousness of a particular offence of dangerous driving causing death. These include the extent and nature of the injuries inflicted, number of people put at risk and degree of speed.
46 Your offending has resulted in the death of one person and whilst your speed was an intrinsic element of the offence it was well in excess of the prescribed speed limit of 60 kilometres per hour. Your driving, which commenced uphill at a speed of 100 to 110 kilometres per hour, was deliberate conduct with potential to endanger others. This is not a case of momentary inattention where moral culpability might be low. Whilst I note that the evidence from the witnesses is that you were driving at a speed for a number of seconds prior to the collision occurring I regard your culpability because of the speed as within the mid‑range for this offence, calling for denunciation and general deterrence. There was fortunately an absence of other aggravating features such as the consumption of drugs or alcohol or failure to stop and I note that both you and the deceased were driving alone.
47 I regard a partially suspended sentence as inappropriate because of the high level of speed over the applicable limit which has resulted in the death of Mr Hussaini. The objective gravity of the offence calls for an immediate term of imprisonment to reflect the sentencing principles of general deterrence and denunciation and no other sentencing disposition is appropriate.
48 There is real utility in your plea of guilty which has spared witnesses the trauma and inconvenience of giving evidence in a trial and significantly relieved the family of the deceased of that experience. The community has been spared the cost of a trial and I regard your plea of guilty as having been entered at an early stage because of the change in charges since committal. This is deserving of a sentencing discount which distinguishes your case from some of the other cases I have considered.
49 I accept the reports of both Mr Newton and Dr Elliott that you have symptoms of post‑traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, stress and depression, since the collision. This enlivens principle 5 of Verdins case in that imprisonment will weigh more heavily upon you than a person in normal health.
50 I am also persuaded by the report of Mr Newton that principle 6 of Verdins case has some relevance in mitigation in that there is a serious risk that imprisonment will have a significant adverse effect on your mental health without treatment.
51 I have taken into account in mitigation your relative youth at 28, the fact that you will be serving a term of imprisonment for the first time and your vulnerability in custody because your parents must return to their occupations overseas.
52 Your vulnerability will be exacerbated by your relative youth and post‑traumatic stress symptoms.
53 You have excellent prospects of rehabilitation with the support of your employer, parents, sister and friends who attended court. I accept the testimony of your sister and your employer, Mr Michael Simpson, that your conduct is out of character and that you have been genuinely remorseful and turned to your Buddhist religion for consolation.
54 Mr Simpson testified that he has known you for 18 months and that you are a conscientious and willing employee who goes above and beyond what is necessary in your work. You have a good work ethic and education which enhance your prospects of rehabilitation.
55 The delay is also relevant and during that stressful period you have conducted yourself very well, continuing to work and to accept counselling which is necessary in the opinion of Dr Elliott.[14]
[14]R v Merrett, Piggott and Ferrari [2007] VSCA 1 [35].
56 You have demonstrated insight into your offending as indicated by the road safety issues recognised on your Facebook page.
57 In fixing a non‑parole period I have taken into account that this is your first period in custody, your vulnerability, relative youth, remorse and excellent prospects of rehabilitation in the community.
Sentence
58 On charge one, dangerous driving causing death, you are convicted and sentenced to 3 years’ imprisonment and I direct that you serve a period of 18 months’ imprisonment before being eligible for parole.
Pre-Sentence Detention
59 I declare that 13 days pre‑sentence detention be reckoned as already served on this sentence and that such declaration be entered in the records of the court.[15]
[15]Sentencing Act 1991, s.18.
Section 6AAA Sentencing Act 1991
60 Where I impose a less severe sentence than I would otherwise impose because of the plea of guilty I am required to state the sentence and the non‑parole period, if any, that I would have imposed but for the plea of guilty. Accordingly, I indicate that if it were not for the plea of guilty I would have convicted and sentenced you to a period of 5 years’ imprisonment with a non‑parole period of 3 years’ imprisonment. So I have taken into account the plea of guilty and the sentence has been reduced.
Licence Order
61 Both punishment and circumstances of mitigation are relevant factors when considering orders against your licence.[16]
[16]R vLefebure (2000) 112 A Crim R 41Tadgell JA and Callaway JA in R v Tran (2002) 4 VR 457.
62 Although the mandatory minimum driver licence disqualification is 18 months, due to the level of speed your driver's licence is cancelled and you are disqualified from driving or obtaining a licence for 2 years from today. I consider this just punishment having regard to the circumstances of your driving.
63 This will require you to undergo disqualification for 6 months if you are released on parole after serving the minimum term, which I consider appropriate having regard to your prior good driving record, your relative youth and to facilitate your rehabilitation.
64 HER HONOUR: Are there any questions about any of the issues?
65 COUNSEL: No, Your Honour.
66 HER HONOUR: Thank you. I will note the custody management issues so that the psychological reports will go with the Court records.
‑‑‑
APPENDIX 1
PROSECUTION OPENING
IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
IN THE MATTER OF Section 182 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS
v.
SHYAM SACHITH JAYASINGHE
SUMMARY OF PROSECUTION OPENING
___________________________________________________________________
Date of document: 26th October 2012
Filed on behalf of: The Director of Public Prosecutions
Prepared by:
CRAIG HYLAND Solicitor’s code: 7539
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions Telephone (03) 9603 7666
565 Lonsdale Street Direct: (03) 9603 7575
Melbourne Vic 3000 Reference: C Teague/l 101314
___________________________________________________________________
1. On the 15th day of March 2011, at approximately 7.45 pm, the Accused was driving his Honda sedan when it was involved in a fatal collision on the Princes Highway, Dandenong. The Accused was travelling in a south-easterly direction when the front of his Honda collided into the passenger side of a Toyota sedan that was making a right hand turn in front of the Accused’s car. The driver of the Toyota sedan was Hamed Hussaini (the Deceased) who died at the scene as a result of injuries he sustained in the collision
2. The collision occurred just west (city side) of Dandenong. The section of the Princes Highway where the collision occurred runs in a general south-east / north-west direction with 3 lanes for traffic travelling in either direction. The south-east and north-west carriageways are divided by a grassed median strip and there is a service road on both sides of the highway. The collision occurred at the intersection of the Princes Highway and Henty Street. Henty Street forms a “T’ intersection with the Princes Highway on the northern side of the highway and runs in a general north-south direction. (Map and photograph 14)
3. At the time of the collision the Accused was driving towards Dandenong in the middle lane of the south-east carriageway. The Deceased was driving away from Dandenong and was in the process of making a right hand turn from the north-west carriage of the Princes Highway into Henty Street, when his Toyota sedan was struck on the passenger side by the front of the Accused’s car. The collision occurred in the left lane of the south-east carriageway adjacent to the commencement of Henty Street.
4. The section of road on which the collision occurred is straight with a slight down hill gradient. The crest of the hill is approximately 100 metres west of the collision scene.
5. The speed limit along that section of the Princes Highway was 60 kph. The road surface was dry and in good condition. The weather was warm and dry and it was a clear evening.
6. The force of the impact caused both vehicles to move further east from the intersection. The Honda came to rest just east of the intersection and had extensive frontal damage. The Toyota sedan came to rest further east of the intersection and had extensive damage to the passenger side. (photographs 15 to 45)
7. The collision was witnessed by Jennie Carlson, who was driving along the Princes Highway in the same direction as the Accused. She was in the left lane of the south-east carriageway. As Jennie Carlson approached Henty Street, she saw Hamed Hussaini’s car turning from the middle of the highway and she thought that it looked like he was trying to perform a U-Turn.
8. Carlson was not travelling very fast at the time because she was intending to turn into the service lane just after Henty Street. (photographs 1 to 3) When she first saw the deceased’s car she thought he had plenty of time to perform the U-Turn in front of her. However, she then saw two cars in her rear vision mirror travelling very fast behind her. One car was in the right lane and the other car was in the middle lane. The car in the right lane was a Ford and the car in the middle lane was the accused’s car.
9. Carlson could not estimate the speed of the cars but described them as going past her like a flash. After the silver car passed her she saw it collide into the side of the car doing a U-Turn, with the force of the impact moving both cars further eastward. The Ford did not stop at the collision scene.
10. A number of witnesses saw the Accused’s car being driven at a high speed prior to the collision. One of those witnesses is Mouhamed Mouneimne who was having dinner at the Pavillion Restaurant with two friends. He was seated at an outside table with his chair lacing the Princes Highway. The Pavillion Restaurant is on the southern side of the highway and to the west of Henty Street. The restaurant is on the opposite side of the crest of the hill to Henty Street, and so the intersection of the Princes Highway and Henty Street cannot be viewed from the restaurant.
11. Whilst Mouneimne was eating his dinner, his attention was drawn to a maroon Ford travelling along the Princes Highway towards Dandenong. He heard the sound of a modified exhaust. When he first saw the Ford, he estimated its speed at between 80 to 90 kph, but then heard it accelerate. He also saw a smaller car next to the Ford. The Ford was in the right hand lane and the smaller car was in the middle lane with the Falcon in front of the smaller car.
12. The cars went over the crest of the hill and out of his view. Soon after, he heard the sound of skidding and the sound of a crash. He and his two friends then ran to the accident scene to see what had happened.
13. Daniel Castillo was in the skate park in Hemming Park, which is on the southern side of the Princes Highway, and is on the city side of the crest of the hill before Henty Street. He was 17 years old at the time but was a part time motor mechanic. Whilst in the park, Castillo heard the sound of a car on the highway and when he looked up, he saw a red Ford in the right hand lane travelling towards Dandenong. He estimated its speed at 95 to 100 kph and speeding up. About half a car length back from the Ford Falcon, he saw the accused’s car that was travelling at about 85 to 90 kph, and it was also accelerating.
14. Castillo watched the two vehicles go over the hill towards Dandenong. As they went over the hill, they were almost side by side and were still accelerating. At that time he estimated the speed of the Ford at 105 kph, and the speed of the Honda at between 95 to 100 kph. Soon after the cars went over the hill, he heard the sound of a crash.
15. Police and ambulance officers attended at the collision scene shortly after the collision. The Accused was conveyed by ambulance to the Alfred Hospital where he received treatment for the injuries he sustained in the collision. The Deceased died at the scene as a result of head injuries he sustained.
16. Senior Constable Jenelle Mehegan, an expert in accident re-construction, attended the collision scene on the night of the collision. She took measurements and notes of various aspects of the scene including the damage to and resting place of both vehicles. The Senior Constable observed on the south-east carriageway just prior to the point of impact, a skid mark left on the roadway by the Accused’s car that measured 14.29 metres in length. Senior Constable Mehegan used data she gathered from the collision scene in mathematical equations to determine the pre impact speed of the Accused’s car.
17. The defence engaged the services of an expert who also calculated the pre impact speed of the accused’s car. Due to the difference between the experts’ conclusions, the police engaged the services of an American expert.
18. As a result, it is agreed between the parties that the pre impact speed of the accused’s vehicle was 100-110kph. Had the accused been travelling at 60 kph in compliance with the speed limit, the collision would not have occurred.
0
11
0