Director of Public Prosecutions v Maloney

[2024] VCC 610

IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA

Revised

Not Restricted

Suitable for Publication

AT LATROBE VALLEY

CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

CR 23-01683

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

v

TAJ MALONEY

---

JUDGE:	HIS HONOUR JUDGE DOYLE
WHERE HELD:	Latrobe Valley
DATE OF HEARING:	1 May 2024
DATE OF SENTENCE:	3 May 2024
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Maloney
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2024] VCC 610

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

---

Subject:  Criminal Law

Catchwords:  negligently causing serious injury - reckless conduct endangering life - driving a probationary prohibited vehicle

Legislation Cited:  Road Safety (Drivers) Regulations 2019; Sentencing Act 1991.

Cases Cited:Papachristodoulou v The Queen [2017] VSCA 284; Harrison v The Queen [2015] VSCA 349; Arpaci v The Queen [2020] VSCA 81; Mills [1998] 4 VR 235; Adem Arpaci v The Queen [2020] VSCA 81; R v Verdins & Ors [2007] VSCA 102.

Sentence:Four years and eight months imprisonment with a non-parole period of two years and four months.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Director of Public Prosecutions	Ms Stewart	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr Rosenhain	Ruffin Lawyers

HIS HONOUR:

1Taj Maloney, you have pleaded guilty to negligently causing serious injury, for which the maximum penalty is 10 years imprisonment and two charges of reckless conduct endangering life, for which the maximum is also 10 years imprisonment. You have also pleaded guilty to driving a probationary prohibited vehicle contrary to s58(1) of the Road Safety (Drivers) Regulations 2019. The maximum penalty for that offence is 10 penalty units.

2This is a tragic case involving you Mr Maloney, a young offender, who drove in a highly negligent fashion, resulting in extremely serious injuries to Kane Valentine; and you placed the lives of Kyle Valentine and Jack Haag in danger.

3The offences arise from a motor vehicle collision which occurred on 15 April 2022.

4The victim in respect of the negligent serious offence is Kane Valentine.  He was born in September 2003.  He was therefore 18 years old at the time of the offending.

5Kyle Valentine, Kane’s older brother and their friend Jack Haag are the victims of the reckless conduct offences.  Kyle was aged 20 at the time of the offending.  Jack Haag was aged 19.

6Your date of birth is in January 2002, and you were 20 years old at the time of the offending.  You are now 22 years old.  You were a probationary licence holder.  You said in your record of interview you had your licence for a couple of years.

7On Friday 15 April 2022 at approximately 11.30 am, you went to the home address of Kane and Kyle Valentine in Cape Paterson.  Kyle Valentine was going out with your younger sister.  You had driven to Cape Paterson that morning from Boronia where you lived with your family.  In your interview, you said that you went there to see your sister and you planned to stay the night.  You went there with your current girlfriend, Charlie Prescott.  In a reference from Ms Prescott tendered to the court, she said she was not at the scene at the time but was there soon after.  I infer from that that she was back at the house at Cape Paterson.

8You were driving a Holden Commodore Sedan with a V8 engine.  As a probationary licence holder, you were prohibited by law from driving such a vehicle.  The car had been modified to sit lower to the road.  The recommended shock absorbers had not been fitted to the front of the vehicle which created the risk of the vehicle becoming ‘unsettled’, therefore increasing the risk of a collision.  In your record of interview, you said that your mother had given you this vehicle to use.  You said that it had not been used for some time and that you had fixed it up.  You said you drove it mainly on the weekends.  You knew it was a V8 and you were not supposed to drive a V8.

9At 11.40 am, you drove away from the Cape Paterson address and then onto Cape Paterson Road, with Jack Haag in the front passenger seat, Kyle Valentine in the rear passenger seat behind the front passenger, and Kane Valentine in the rear passenger seat behind the driver.

10Cape Paterson Road between Cape Paterson and Wonthaggi is a two-way, two lane sealed divided road, aligned in a north-south orientation.  The road has one lane in each direction divided by a series of broken white painted lines and a solid white line along the length of road.  The outer edge of the roadway is delineated by painted fog lines.  Adjacent to the fog lines on each side of the road is a grass and tree d shoulder and rural fencing.  The road is constructed of bitumen, and it was in good condition at the relevant time. The speed limit is 100 kilometres per hour in the area where the collision occurred.  At the time of the collision the road was dry, and the weather was fine.

11You drove north along Cape Paterson Road towards Wonthaggi, skidding as you turned around corners.  Kyle Valentine described your driving in this way:

It felt like we were speeding through the windy bits, then when we hit the main drag (straight) and I saw the speedometer showing 170 kilometres per hour and then we told him to slow down for the corner.

12At some point you turned and drove back towards Cape Paterson heading south.  You impermissibly overtook several vehicles on a section of road with a solid white line dividing the road.

13Kyle Valentine said this:

We were screaming 'no'.  We were yelling at him, loud enough that he should have heard us.  I could clearly hear Jack yelling 'no' and I was right behind him.  There's a crest approaching and that's why I didn't want him to overtake as you can't see what's coming.  At this stage, the speedo was showing 150, I leaned to the right and I could see the 150, there was nothing obstructing my view'.

14Jack Haag was also concerned by your driving.  He said this:

Taj was driving too fast, scary fast.  Kyle and I were yelling at Taj to slow down.  I looked at the speedo and saw that we were doing 160 kilometres an hour, far too fast for the road conditions.  Taj overtook one car and caught up to another car that was towing a trailer and this was just before the crest.  Just before the crest, Taj began to overtake the car that was towing the trailer.  He accelerated more while overtaking.  I am sure that he was going much faster than the 160 kilometres I had seen on the speedo.  I have never been in a car that has travelled so fast before.

15You drove south in the northbound lane at high speed and when you moved adjacent to the car with the trailer, a vehicle heading north appeared over the crest of the hill. Just prior to reaching a crest in the road, you applied left hand steering together with emergency braking, causing the Commodore to skid while it began to veer left.

16When the vehicle reached the southbound lane and moved closer to the eastern shoulder, you applied righthand steering and emergency braking, which again caused the car to skid.  The vehicle began to rotate as it skidded across the bitumen.  You had lost control of the vehicle.  It skidded along the road for
124 metres, before moving off the road for 20 metres until it collided with a tree, flipping the vehicle onto its roof.  The vehicle came to stop 35 metres from the tree.

17The scrape marks and body scuff marks were circular in nature and indicated the Holden had been rotating on its roof at the time it was sliding across the bitumen surface, after colliding with the tree.

18A collision reconstructionist, Detective Leading Senior Constable Walker, attended the scene and conducted an examination.  In his opinion, when the Holden first commenced skidding, it was travelling at a minimum speed of 176 kilometres an hour.

19You managed to get out of the vehicle as did Kyle Valentine and Jack Haag.

20Emergency services attended the scene and treated you and the others.  The vehicle was located by police on the western side of the road, overturned in the foliage adjacent to the road.

21Kane Valentine had been dragged out of the vehicle and was lying near the passenger side of the car.

22You were taken to Wonthaggi Hospital where a sample of your blood was taken.  You had no alcohol, illicit drugs or prescription medication in your system.

23Kane Valentine was partially ejected from the rear window of the vehicle, causing his face and elbow to come into contact with the road after the collision with the tree, for 35 metres as the vehicle rotated on its roof.  He was taken to the Royal Melbourne Hospital following the collision and was placed on life support.

24He sustained an open skull fracture and facial fractures; facial degloving; a right orbital injury causing his right eye to be removed; intracranial haemorrhages with traumatic brain injury; collapsed lungs; a left open elbow fracture; and knee and soft tissue damage including to the medial ligament.

25He was operated on multiple times, including a decompressive craniotomy and dural repair, repair to his facial injuries, repair to nerves and fractures in his elbow, and skin grafts taken from his thigh for repair to his elbow and face.  He spent approximately two months in hospital following the collision.

26He has lost his right eye. He has very significant facial scarring and scarring to his elbow and thigh, where the skin graft for his face was taken.  He has a weakness in his legs, limited use of his left arm, and he often feels tired and short of breath.  Over the two years since the collision, he has had constant appointments with physiotherapists, occupational therapists, speech therapists, neuropsychologists, wound care specialists and doctors in relation to his injuries.

27He said in his police statement the following:

As a result of the car crash, my life has drastically changed.  I have only one eye and I can't use my left arm for at least nine months which is when I will have surgery.  In saying that, there is no-one who has had surgery like this, so I am unsure what the recovery time would be, if at all.  My life has changed as a result of this and will never be what it was.

28Kyle Valentine was taken to the Wonthaggi Hospital for observation and treatment.  He sustained mild right upper quadrant tenderness.

29Jack Haag was also taken to the Wonthaggi Hospital for observation and treatment.  He sustained discomfort and tenderness to the spine and bruising to the left forehead.

30Victim impact statements were provided by Kane and Kyle Valentine and a joint victim impact statement was provided by their parents Mark and Louise.  Jack Haag made a victim impact statement, and his parents Belinda and Heath also made a joint victim impact statement.  All victim impact statements, except for Kyle's, were read by the prosecutor in open court.  Those statements movingly and comprehensively set out the multi-faceted effects of your offending.

31No one reading or listening to what was said in those statements could have any doubt about the devastating impact of your driving on all of those people.

32Kane describes the enormity of the injuries he sustained and the ordeal he has endured over the last two years.  The impact on his life had been catastrophic.  He said this:

I often think about how much easier it would've been if I had just died in the accident.  It often seems easier than having to live the rest of my life like this.  The physical pain and mental torment doesn't appear worth fighting, only to be rewarded with half a life and constant embarrassment and judgment from my appearance. 

33He concluded by saying this:

I will always carry what you have done to me for the rest of my life.  Every day when I wake up, I look in the mirror and all I can see is the reminder of how you ruined my life.  No punishment you receive today will be as bad as what you have left me with.

34Plainly the effect on Kane has been enormous.

35His parents describe their torment at not knowing if he would live or die and the heart wrenching decision, they made to leave Kyle to go and see Kane at the Royal Melbourne Hospital, because they believed he was going to die.

36There is no sentence that I can be impose that will give back to you Kane, the life that you would have had, but for the injuries you sustained.  There can be no equivalence between your injuries and what you have endured and the sentence that I impose.

37Additionally, the mental scars left on Kyle and Jack and their parents will be longstanding.

38The sentence I will impose reflects the large number of factors which judges are required by law to consider, only one of which is the impact on the victims.  That said, the impact of these offences on the victims is a very significant matter in sentencing, in a case such as this.

39My sentence today is the completion of the legal process in the aftermath of this incident which has been a protracted and painful period for all the victims in this case. 

40The impact on the victims of these offences informs the need for just punishment for the offences you have committed.

Seriousness of the offending

41In the case of Papachristodoulou v The Queen [2017] VSCA 284,[1] the Court of Appeal made the following comments about the offence of negligent driving causing serious injury:

In general, an assessment of the seriousness of such an offence is made by reference both to the degree of departure by the offender from the standard of reasonable care expected of an ordinary driver, and by the seriousness of the injuries occasioned by the driving.  In turn, an evaluation of the degree of departure by the offender from the requisite standard of care is informed by a variety of factors, including the degree of risk and potential harm involved in the manner of driving by the offender and the foreseeability of the risk created by the offender’s driving.[2]

[1]Papachristodoulou v The Queen [2017] VSCA 284.

[2] Ibid [34].

42This is clearly a serious example of this offence.  It is true that you were not affected by drugs or alcohol, but the departure from the standard of care required of the ordinary driver was very substantial.  Your speed was extreme, at least 76 kilometres per hour over the speed limit when you lost control.  This was not a case where the negligent driving was of short duration.  Based on the prosecution opening and the witness statements, you were driving dangerously pretty much from when you got onto Cape Paterson Road until the collision.  You were warned to slow down and not to overtake by your passengers who apprehended the danger they were in, but you ignored their pleas more than once. 

43The passing manoeuvre which led to the collision was not only executed at extreme speed, but it was also against a solid white line indicating the danger of passing.  You were heading to the crest of a hill.  And you drove in this way as an inexperienced probationary licensed driver, who was prohibited from driving a vehicle with a V8 engine.  When the vehicle appeared heading towards your vehicle at the speed you were moving, you were entirely ill-equipped to avoid the disaster that followed. 

44The other factor to consider in assessing this offence of negligent causing serious injury is the seriousness of the injuries sustained.  Kane Valentine's injuries were both life endangering and substantial and protracted which is the statutory definition of a serious injury.  On the first limb, it is apparent from the material that Kane was not expected to survive his horrific injuries.  His life was hanging by a thread for quite some time.  On the second limb, his injuries are plainly of the utmost seriousness.  As he said in his statement and victim impact statement, the life he would have had is gone because of his injuries. 

45In the case of Harrison v The Queen and Rigogiannis v The Queen [2015] VSCA 349,[3] the Court of Appeal considered the adequacy of current sentencing practices and noted the need for an uplift in sentencing practice for negligent driving causing serious injury.  The court made the following remarks:

The law thus provides for particular penal consequences for those who drive in a negligent manner and cause serious injury.  The primary purposes of the sanction is twofold, to punish the offender and to deter drivers from driving irresponsibly.[4]

[3]Harrison v The Queen [2015] VSCA 349.

[4] Ibid [107].

46The same factors which underpin the seriousness of Charge 1 apply to the gravity of the endangerment offences.  The danger to life which was occasioned by your driving high.  By your plea, you acknowledge you foresaw the probability of this danger.  The imminent danger of your driving was made plain to you by both Kyle Valentine and Jack Haag, when they yelled at you to slow down and not to overtake.  The impact on them of this incident has been substantial.  They will not be able to forget what happened on that day.

47Given the serious features of the driving that I have outlined, I regard your moral culpability for the offending in this case as high.

Personal Circumstances

48You were born and raised in Bayswater in Melbourne. You are the oldest of three children. You have a younger half‑sister, and a cousin who grew up in the family and is considered as a sibling.

49Your parents separated when you were in primary school but continued living together and raising you and your siblings together under the same roof for financial reasons. 

50You have had some issues in your relationships with your parents, that are set out in the material, particularly with your mother; however, since the offending they have been steadfast in their support of you which has strengthened your connection to them. 

51Your younger sister is in a relationship with Kyle Valentine.  This has caused a strain on your relationship with her.  Understandably, you avoid family gatherings where Mr Valentine might attend.

52You struggled at school. You were diagnosed with dyslexia and dysgraphia in Grade 2.  Your school years were difficult due to your academic struggles, and your behavioural and social issues. You moved schools in Grade 6 due to bullying.  You went to two high schools. You completed Year 12.

53You worked at a local butcher shop when you were at school and also with Creative Drain Solutions through a school-based apprenticeship which you started in Year 11.  When you left school you worked in plastering with your uncle. You were not able to continue in that job when you were charged with these offences because you could no longer drive and you were not able to obtain a Working with Children Certificate. Your uncle's business does work in schools.  Your previous employer at Creative Drain Solutions re‑employed you. 

54You have had two long-term relationships. The material indicates that the first relationship caused you significant confidence issues and ended prior to the offending in this case.

55You have been in a relationship Charlee Prescott who attended court to support you and provided a reference.   That relationship is of approximately two years standing.  It is clear from the material that relationship had started at the time of this offending.  The two of you recently decided to terminate a pregnancy due to your legal issues and concerns regarding your future.  Your counsel, Mr Habib, told me that you have been aware for some time that the outcome of these proceeding would be a prison sentence.

Guilty plea

56The charges were filed in this case on 3 April 2023 close to a year after the offences. The reason for this delay was uncertainty about whether Kane Valentine would survive his injuries. The matter resolved at a Committal Case Conference on 22 September 2023. 

57Your guilty plea was at the earliest opportunity. I am satisfied your plea of guilty indicates a willingness to facilitate the course of justice and shows your remorse for the offending.  Your plea has considerable utilitarian value. You have saved the court, the prosecution and the police the use of the resources required for a trial. You have spared the victims the experience of having to give evidence and relive these traumatic events. Your guilty plea was entered at a time when this court still faced some backlog of trials as a result of the suspension of its operations during the pandemic.  You have made some contribution to the reduction of that backlog by pleading guilty when you did in September last year.  Of course, your plea came at the tail end of the court's backlog, but it nonetheless attracts some modest additional utilitarian value for that reason.  You must receive a significant sentencing discount for your guilty plea.

Delay

58Given the uncertainty surrounding Kane Valentine's condition the delay in charging you was understandable. Nonetheless you have waited two years knowing you faced a prison sentence, and I take into that into account in deciding the appropriate sentences in this case.  An example of the impact of the delay is that you and your partner decided to terminate the pregnancy due to the likely outcome of these proceedings. 

59In the time since the offence, you have not come to police attention and you have been gainfully employed. You have been able to demonstrate over that period that your prospects of rehabilitation are positive.  

60You have no prior convictions. Apart from this offending you have been a person of good character.  I have been provided with character references from the following people.

61Your mother, Jodie Westra; your uncle and previous employer, Mark Davis; Steve Edward, your employer at Creative Drain Solutions; Kerrin Keily, a Sales Administrator at Creative Drain Solutions; Beccy Dawber, a friend of yours and the President of the Bayswater Football Club, where you have connections; your cousin, Leah Jordan; Donna Prescott, the mother of your partner; Tamara Westra, your aunt; Julie Cooke, the grandmother of your partner; Holly Lowrie, a friend of yours; and Paulette Cook, as well.

62In relation to your uncle, Mark Davis, he speaks of your work ethic and describes the circumstances in which you are no longer able to work with him.  Mr Edward also speaks of your work ethic and indicates he re-employed you without hesitation.

63Collectively, the references establish that you have insight, guilt and remorse in respect of the offending and that your mental health has suffered in the two years since the collision.  It is clear you are a good worker and a family-oriented person.  Many people have been prepared to write testaments to your character.

64I am satisfied based on your work history, the character references, the absence of prior or subsequent convictions and on the psychological material that you are a young man who presents with very good or even excellent prospects of rehabilitation.  This conclusion and your guilt and remorse also reduces the need for specific deterrence in this case.

65Specific deterrence is the need for my sentence to send to you a message that punitive consequences will follow if you re-offend.

Youth

66Mr Habib submitted that the principles relating to sentencing youthful offenders set out in the case of Mills [1998] 4 VR 235 apply.[5] In particular he submitted that each of the following three propositions raised in Mills have application in this case:

·     That the youth of an offender, particularly a first offender, should be a primary consideration for a sentencing court where that matter properly arises.

·     That rehabilitation should be a significant consideration.

·     That regard must be had to the impact of incarceration in an adult prison on a young offender, which is likely to impede his prospects of rehabilitation.

[5]Mills [1998] 4 VR 235.

67Mr Habib submitted that due to your youth and lack of priors, these were important factors in this case.

68In the decision of Harrison, to which I referred earlier, decided many years after Mills, the Court of Appeal made the following comments concerning the application of the principles relating to sentencing youthful offenders for this type of offending:

We noted earlier in our reasons that negligently causing serious injury by driving is frequently committed by young offenders with otherwise good character, who have a limited criminal history and good prospects for rehabilitation. As was said in Director of Public Prosecutions v Neethling in respect of dangerous driving causing death and dangerous driving causing serious injury: 'It is precisely because of the tendency of young drivers to drive dangerously. that general deterrence must be regarded as of great importance, and youth must be given relatively less weight.'[6]

[6]Harrison v The Queen [2015] VSCA 349 115.

69In the case of Arpaci v The Queen [2020] VSCA 81[7] a culpable driving case involving extreme speed and two deaths, the offender was 21 years old at the time of the offending. The Court of Appeal said this in respect of the application of youthful offender principles:

His youth did not measurably moderate the weight to be attached to the sentencing principle of general deterrence, nevertheless it was not irrelevant. The law recognises that it is in the interests of the community that young offenders, such as the applicant, be successfully rehabilitated into society at the conclusion of their sentences. Accordingly, it is important that sentences, that are imposed in a case such as this, be not of such severity as to crush or adversely affect the prospects of the offender's rehabilitation. In this case, the applicant's prospects of rehabilitation are positive. It was important that the sentences imposed on him not be such as to duly undermine those prospects.[8]

[7]AdemArpaci v The Queen [2020] VSCA 81.

[8] Ibid [273].

70The principles set out in the cases to which I have referred have application to your situation. So, whilst your youth and the need to promote your rehabilitation are moderating factors on the sentences to be imposed, their prominence is reduced because of the prevalence of offending such as this by young male offenders of good character.  General deterrence (which is the need to send a message to future offenders that such conduct will not be tolerated); and just punishment, remain the most significant sentencing principles.

71Denunciation of your offending through the sentence I impose also has significance.

Extra Curial Punishment

72Mr Habib submitted that there is extra-curial punishment by way of the loss of your employment and the change in your family dynamics and I have taken those matters into account in deciding the sentence in this case.

Psychological reports

73Two psychological reports were tendered, one from Andrew Dunhill who has been treating you since 2019.  He says in his report you have a history of poor self-esteem and depressive symptoms since your mid-teens. He sets out the issues that led you to seek counselling, which I have taken into account but which I do not think are necessary to describe in detail in this sentence. 

74He says you have symptoms of PTSD since the collision, and you are suffering from depression.  He regards you as a low risk to reoffend. You were referred to Mr Dunhill by your doctor some years ago, well before the collision in this case.

75I also received a psychological report from a Ms Bovenekurk, a forensic psychologist, who diagnosed you as having an Adjustment Disorder and a Major Depressive Disorder. She said this about the interaction of your psychological conditions with a period of imprisonment:

Whilst the sentencing disposition is solely a matter for the Court, it is highlighted that imprisonment would likely weigh more heavily on Mr Maloney, who would be considered a vulnerable individual within the custodial environment given his age and as he has no history of incarceration, this places him at a higher risk of threats, intimidation, and exploitation by those with more entrenched patterns of offending. His dependent personality traits are also likely to impact Mr Maloney in custody, as he is more likely to acquiesce to the demands of others in order to avoid conflict.

The volatile nature of the prison environment can be confronting for an individual with no prior criminal experience, and there is therefore a significant risk of Mr Maloney's depression, anxiety, and trauma worsening in this environment. His PTSD (and possible ADHD) also place him at a higher risk of inappropriate or disproportionate responses due to poor emotional regulation and impulsive behaviour, which can result in unintentional sanctions and higher vulnerability to experiencing issues with offenders or with staff.

76She said this also:

It seems fair to opine that imprisonment is likely to have a negative effect on Mr Maloney's development and future behavioural outcomes through the loss of positive social structures and educational and vocational access.

77Mr Habib submitted that limbs 5 and 6 of the case of Verdins apply to you.[9] They are that the weight of the sentence on the offender in comparison to a person in normal psychological health is increased and, that there is a significant risk of a worsening of your mental health as a result of imprisonment.

[9]R v Verdins & Ors [2007] VSCA 102.

78The prosecution took no issue with the application of these principles, and I have taken principles 5 and 6 of Verdins into account as mitigating factors. You are a young man with no criminal history who has historically been prone to depression so I am satisfied the sentence I impose will weigh heavily on you.

79The non-parole period mitigates punishment in favour of rehabilitation.  It must though reflect the objective gravity of the offending.  It is the minimum period of imprisonment that justice requires to be served.  In your case, because of the delay and the progress towards rehabilitation you have made, together with your youth and positive prosects of rehabilitation, I have decided to allow for a significant gap between the head sentence and the non-parole period. 

80In this case, I am sentencing you for one criminal act which resulted in three offences.  Therefore, there does need to be substantial concurrency between the sentences, however there must be some cumulation to reflect the criminality and the effect on the victims, Kyle Valentine and Jack Haag in Charges 2 and 3. In addition, the totality principle applies which means that the total effective sentence I impose must be just and proportionate to the total criminality of your offending. 

81I will now proceed to sentence in this matter, if you could stand, Mr Maloney.

Sentence

82In respect of Charge 1, you are convicted and sentenced to a period of imprisonment of 4 years.

83In relation to Charge 2, you are convicted and sentenced to a period of imprisonment of 24 months.

84In relation to Charge 3, you are convicted and sentenced to a period of imprisonment of 24 months.

85In respect of the summary offence, I order that you be convicted and discharged.

86Four months of the sentence on Charge 2 and four months of the sentence on Charge 3 will be cumulative on each other and on the base sentence for Charge 1.  Which makes a total effective sentence of four years eight months.

87I fix a minimum non-parole period in this case of two years four months.

88Negligent serious injury is a serious motor vehicle offence pursuant to s87P(b) of the Sentencing Act 1991. I must cancel and disqualify you from obtaining a licence for a period of not less than 24 months. I take into account that you have not been able to drive pursuant to your bail conditions since you were charged, and the order I make is that you are cancelled and disqualified for two years.

S 6AAA

89I indicate that but for your plea of guilty I would have imposed a sentence of six years and four months with a minimum non-parole period of four years and two months.

Pre-sentence detention

90I allow pre-sentence detention in this matter of two days.

91Are there any other orders I need to make in this case?

92MS STEWART:  Nothing further, Your Honour.

93HIS HONOUR:  Could Mr Maloney please be taken into custody, thank you officers.  As I said the other day, these are very difficult cases and I thank everyone in court for their calmness in listening to my sentence and the proceedings the other day.  I will now adjourn, thank you.

‑ ‑ ‑