Director of Public Prosecutions v Maranis
[2018] VCC 188
•2 March 2018
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL JURISDICTIONCR 17-01976
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| GEORGE MARANIS |
---
| JUDGE: | HIS HONOUR JUDGE HIGHAM |
| WHERE HELD: | Melbourne |
| DATE OF HEARING: | 21 February 2018 |
| DATE OF SENTENCE: | 2 March 2018 |
| CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Maranis |
| MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2018] VCC 188 |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---Subject:
Catchwords:
Legislation Cited:
Cases Cited:
Sentence:---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Director of Public Prosecutions | Mr D. Brown | Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Mr C. Mandy | Chiodo & Madafferi Solicitors |
HIS HONOUR:
1George Maranis, you have pleaded guilty to one charge of dangerous driving causing serious injury and to one charge of possessing a drug of dependence. The maximum penalty for the offence of dangerous driving causing serious injury is a term of imprisonment of five years. The maximum penalty for possession of a drug of dependence is a fine or alternatively 12 months' imprisonment.
2I turn to the circumstances of the offending.
3On the plea there was tendered a summary of prosecution opening, Exhibit 1, a copy of which I annexe to these sentencing reasons.
4At about 5.20 am on the morning of 16 February 2016, you were driving your father's black BMW X5 west along La Trobe Street, towards the intersection with William Street. Just before your vehicle reached that intersection it veered to the left and the front passenger wheel struck the edge of the footpath, causing the vehicle to mount the gutter. The vehicle continued on for a very short distance in the direction of William Street and struck Christopher Timms with the front passenger side. Upon impact Mr Timms came into contact with your vehicle’s bonnet and windscreen and was thrown in the air, before coming to rest near the north bound lane gutter of William Street. Your vehicle skidded to a stop across William Street, before being parked up on La Trobe Street to the west of the intersection.
5The intersection of La Trobe and William Streets is a four way cross intersection, with one lane of travel in each direction. Each direction also has a left turning lane. There is provision to turn right, by way of a hook turn, in each direction, which is performed from the left-hand lane of each carriageway. There is also provision for trams to travel in each direction. The intersection is controlled by traffic control signals. The road at the time was lit by street lighting and the posted speed limit for La Trobe Street at the scene was 40 kilometres an hour.
6CCTV footage from the AFP building in La Trobe Street captures your BMW going past that building, towards the intersection with William Street. This footage shows the traffic light applicable to you as being green. There is therefore no suggestion that you tried to run a red light. However, this footage also shows that you were in the right-hand lane as you passed the AFP building, approaching William Street, that is to say, the correct lane if you wished to travel across William Street and continue west along La Trobe.
7On the plea, I was provided with an aerial view of William Street and La Trobe Street, where various positions have been identified to assist my visual understanding of the scene and of the various locations referred to. Accident reconstruction of the debris on the roadway enabled a conclusion that Mr Timms was very close to the southern curb when he was struck. Thus at the time of impact Mr Timms had crossed the road, and had your vehicle remained in the correct lane, he would have continued about his daily business without incident. There was no physical evidence to prove that your vehicle was braking prior to it colliding with Mr Timms. From the skid marks on the roadway Detective Leading Senior Constable Hardiman, at the Major Collision Investigation Unit, formed the opinion that your vehicle was travelling at a minimum of 59 kilometres per hour when it began the post-impact skidding within the intersection.
8After being treated at the scene by paramedics, Mr Timms was taken to the Royal Melbourne Hospital with life threatening injuries. He was treated for traumatic brain injury, with a CT scan revealing a fractured skull with subdural hematoma, cerebral haemorrhage, and subarachnoid haemorrhage. He also suffered fractures to both cheek bones, the left femur and left elbow, sternal and rib fractures on both sides, L2 to L5 fractures and abdominal injuries, including liver and splenic lacerations. His period of post-traumatic amnesia was estimated at 137 days, which of itself indicated a very severe brain injury.
9On 22 March 2016 he was transferred to the brain injury rehabilitation program at the Epworth Hospital, where he remained until late 2016. The view of the clinical professor at the Epworth Hospital was that Mr Timms would require ongoing supervised care for the rest of his life. Quite simply, the injuries suffered by Mr Timms can be described as catastrophic, disabling and lifelong.
10You remained at the scene and were arrested by police and taken to the North Melbourne Police Station. I am told that you were cooperative with police. You answered "no comment" to questions put to you in your record of interview. That was, of course, an exercise of your right to silence and I make it clear that this is not held against you.
11Upon search of your vehicle police found two pills containing Diazepam, which underpins Charge 2, possession of a drug of dependence. Two Stilnox pills were also found.
12Police subsequently analysed the mobile phone that you had been using in the days leading up to the collision. The analysis indicated that the telephone was in use for most of the time in the 44 hours leading up to the collision. In the
24 hours prior to the collision, the longest that your telephone was not used was 45 minutes.13In light of this analysis, Professor Matthew Naughton of the Alfred Hospital was asked to comment upon the possibility of fatigue being a factor in the collision. His opinion is that you would have been profoundly sleep deprived prior to the collision and further, that any brief powernaps during that period would not have been sufficient to alleviate the degree of sleepiness. His opinion was that sleep deprivation of such severity was extremely likely to have contributed to the collision. It is estimated that a person has impaired driving capacity after 24 hours sleep deprivation equivalent to a blood alcohol reading of 0.1 per cent, that is to say, twice the legal prescribed limit, and so a driver would be at high risk of error whilst driving. As I said, that is an estimation based upon sleep deprivation for a period of only 24 hours.
14I turn now to your personal circumstances, Mr Maranis.
15You were born on 16 June 1987 and were 29 at the time of this offending, and you are now aged 30. You grew up in Port Melbourne and your family consisted of your parents, Mary and James Maranis, and a younger sister, Christina, aged 26.
16You attended the local primary school and went to high school at Albert Park College. I am told you were an average student. In Year 11 you were caught drinking alcohol on school camp and you were suspended; you never went back to school.
17You then enrolled in an apprenticeship in marine engineering and did a mechanics course. You are good with your hands rather than having academic strengths.
18In terms of your employment, you have worked as a carpenters labourer for Mason's Constructions on and off for a period of years. In 2010 you went overseas for a one year period and then returned to construction work, which was your employment at the material time.
19It appears that during your childhood years, your mum and dad were engaged in building up their business and thus providing for you a life filled with the material benefits to which they in their childhood did not have access. No doubt feeling an understandable sense of guilt, during your childhood years they sought to substitute material things for their absence at work.
20You were parented for much of your childhood by your grandparents and they also provided you with material things. But you, it seems, came to view the provision of material things as something to which you were entitled. To add to this, you were not provided with sufficient boundaries. You were, in short, “spoilt”, to use your own counsel's words.
21Unfortunately, illicit drugs became a key part of your personal story. You began to use marijuana at the age of 16, used ecstasy for the first time at the age of 17 and began to use methamphetamine at the age of 18.
22For the next decade you lived a life that was filled with drugs, inappropriate peers, partying, and breaking rules and boundaries. It seems that every mistake on your part was forgiven and being taken back into the family fold, you then felt free to commit yet more mistakes. You yourself have the insight to describe methamphetamine as “the biggest problem ever and I've just woken up to myself".
23Your criminal record contains matters dating back to 2006. You have been convicted of a range of offences, including recklessly causing injury, drug possession, false imprisonment, theft, burglary, driving whilst disqualified, driving at an excessive speed, possessing a weapon and breaching court orders. You have been dealt with by adjourned undertakings, fines, licence disqualifications and one community correction order, and multiple suspended sentences.
24Your counsel conceded that these matters included what are termed, 'relevant priors'.
25You received your first suspended prison sentence of three months in October 2007. This was for an offence of driving whilst disqualified. In August 2009 you returned to court for breaching that suspended sentence. The learned magistrate made no order in relation to the suspended sentence in view of “the different nature of the offence which brought you back to court”, coupled with “the extraordinary rehabilitation” that you had undertaken over the previous 11 months. That is an observation, I repeat, that was made by the learned magistrate in August 2009.
26Between August 2009 and November 2012 you remained offence free. You told psychologist Mina Kobatsiari that during this period you went to Greece for a gap year, worked in the construction industry here in Melbourne, and abstained from illicit drug use for over a year. However, unfortunately, by mid-2012 you had returned to methamphetamine use and, not surprisingly, to offending.
27In November 2012 you were convicted and received a community correction order for 24 months in respect of offences of dishonesty, criminal damage and violence. In August 2013 you were sentenced to a suspended term of imprisonment for false imprisonment. In December 2013 you were found guilty of contravening the earlier community correction order by the commission of two offences of driving whilst disqualified and you were resentenced for all of the earlier offences. You received varying terms of imprisonment, in respect of different offences, all of which were suspended for an operational period of 12 months. In July 2014 you were again sentenced to a suspended term of imprisonment for theft of a motor vehicle.
28As your counsel accepted on the plea, your prior criminal history is a reflection of the person you then were. Of course, you are not to be sentenced again for your past offending, nor does your past offending impact upon the seriousness and gravity of this offending. However, your past offending and response to court orders does impact upon my assessment of your prospects for rehabilitation. Your criminal record reveals periods of addiction and offending, which is then punctuated by periods of sobriety and of course, remaining offence free. It is clear, Mr Maranis, put quite simply, that your future depends upon your ability to remain drug free, not over next week but over the rest of your life.
29There was tendered on the plea Exhibit 9GM, a psychological report of
Ms Mina Kobatsiari, and Exhibit 10GM, a report of Denise Abadee, who is an experienced and well recognised drug and alcohol counsellor.30Ms Kobatsiari noted that you had vague, blurred memories of the accident on 16 February 2016. You reported experiencing flashbacks to the accident and nightmares, and Ms Kobatsiari is of the opinion that you present with features of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder as a direct consequence of the accident. You reported feeling immense remorse, guilt and regret for the accident and the injuries that you caused to your victim.
31You presented to Ms Kobatsiari with a Major Depressive Disorder, the symptoms of which, she was of the opinion, date back to early childhood and which remained untreated until June 2016. You reported very low levels of self-esteem to Ms Kobatsiari, stemming from a speech impediment when you were in primary school and which was further compounded during your adolescence by feelings of inadequacy, isolation and a propensity to self-punish. You reported these factors, in combination with what you considered to be a lack of support from your parents, contributed to your gravitation towards drug and alcohol abuse. Ms Kobatsiari noted your drug and alcohol experimentation began when you were a high school student and later escalated to abusing alcohol and methamphetamines. You partly attribute your drug and alcohol abuse to your association with others who engage in this behaviour, saying that you started to "go down the wrong track". You also reported that at one stage, this behaviour was reinforced by a girlfriend who shared the same lifestyle.
32Ms Kobatsiari concluded that considering your current positive prognosis, amongst other factors, you “do not appear to be at risk of reoffending”. This conclusion was based upon your continued mental health treatment.
Ms Kobatsiari noted that your mental health is “one of the most significant risk factors for relapse to drug abuse and hence to criminal recidivism”. She considered you to be committed to the treatment process and responding positively to the psychological treatment.33In your therapeutic sessions with Ms Abadee, your drug and alcohol counsellor, you acknowledged with the benefit of hindsight that at the time that you started using drugs, you felt alone and that drugs provided you with the means of coping with peer group pressures and with family expectations. It is not clear from where that feeling of loneliness came, in view of the love in which you were clearly held by your parents, by your grandparents, by your family. Nonetheless, your abuse of substances provided you with a sense of belonging, a form of self-medicating and an attitude of not caring, which assisted you with a confidence in social settings and provided you with the acceptance that you craved from both your peers and new acquaintances.
34You told Ms Abadee that you had been wanting to stop using drugs for a couple of years prior to the accident after having tried several rehabilitation programs, always relapsing and being embarrassed to ask for help. You were referred to Ms Abadee in September 2017 by your lawyers.
35It is clear from the material provided to me on the plea that since that time you have been able to remain drug free. Ms Abadee states that you have “demonstrated honesty and insight into his personal issues, relapse triggers and future drug treatment needs. He presents as having a positive approach to changing his lengthy and highly problematic poly substance use and dependence.”
36Mr Maranis, I accept that you now express a desire to remain drug free and I accept that you express a determination to do whatever is required today, tomorrow, for your future.
37I turn now to the offending and its objective gravity.
38Mr Maranis, at the risk of stating the obvious, cars can be very dangerous weapons in the wrong hands. In recognition of the potential harm that can be caused by their misuse, the law places a responsibility upon everyone who gets behind the wheel to maintain a standard of sobriety, attention, alertness and due care.
39For driving to be dangerous, so as to attract the sanctions of criminal law, it must be driving that places others at risk over and above those risks that are ordinarily associated with driving a motor vehicle. It is the extent of the risk which the driving creates, as well as the extent of the potential harm should that risk materialise, that is to say occur, that has to guide my assessment of the dangerousness of your driving and the objective gravity of the offence.
40A factor which informs the objective gravity of the offence is the consequence which flows from it. So I must take into account the injuries suffered by your victim. In this case it cannot be forgotten that Christopher Timms, a father, son, a loved ex-partner, a musician, a fiercely intelligence, creative, witty, and passionate man who loved life is now trapped in a disabled body and a damaged mind. He has had that life taken from him by your actions and now will remain in lifelong need of care, trapped in that body, unable even to cope with his daily bathroom needs.
41No one in this court could fail to be moved by the victim impact statements that were read out by the learned prosecutor of Mr Timms' mother and father, Robert and Amy; of his former partner, Jorgia and of his two daughters Ella-Mia and Kallista. They spoke in their statements eloquently and profoundly of the man who was, and who will never be again.
42His former partner Jorgia Georgakopoulos wrote:
"Since the day he was struck down and left fighting for his life, watching Chrys lose every part of who he is, is still beyond words (for me)... Seeing his daughters breaks my heart. Their dad was always there for them. He was so involved and aware of their lives. Always wanting to show them something new or teach them about life in some way. He was a whirlpool of knowledge. They no longer have this. They have had to grieve the loss of their dad, whilst he is still alive. This is a cruel fate.”
43I must also make an assessment of your moral culpability for this offending; that means the extent to which you can be held personally responsible for your actions and for their consequences. I make this assessment by having regard to the degree to which the particular consequences of your acts were, or should have been, foreseen by you. I have to assess both the dangerousness of the driving and your moral culpability by reference to all of the relevant conduct and circumstances as I find them to be.
44Mr Brown, learned counsel for the prosecution, submitted whilst there was no evidence of earlier bad driving, this was not a case of momentary distraction or inattention. He referred to Mr Hardiman's report, which stated that your vehicle had narrowly missed a pole prior to mounting the gutter and that you were obviously not in control of your vehicle. He pointed to the speed at which you were travelling, at least 59 kilometres per hour in a 40 kilometre per hour zone. He submitted that the objective gravity of your offending lay in your fatigue, which played a determinative role in the collision. He submitted that the nature and extent of the injuries suffered by your victim is a key component of the objective gravity of the offending.
45He submitted that you knew you were sleep deprived. You therefore must have or ought to have been aware of the extent of your fatigue before getting into your vehicle and of the attendant risks. That awareness directly founds your moral culpability. He submitted that your moral culpability is high.
46It was common ground that considerations of deterrence and denunciation were primary sentencing considerations in your case. Mr Brown recognised your remorse and he recognised the steps that you had taken to progress your rehabilitation. However, he submitted that the objective gravity of the offending and your moral culpability for it was such that only a term of imprisonment could be imposed.
47On your behalf, learned counsel, Mr Mandy, accepted at the outset of his submissions to me that the injuries and their impact were profound and devastating, both for Mr Timms and for his family. He conceded that you had been up without sleep for many hours prior to the collision. You had been using methamphetamine in this period and that had led to your sleep deprivation. You do not remember the accident itself.
48Mr Mandy accepted that the dangerousness of your driving lay in your fatigue and in your getting into the vehicle in such a state and then driving. He conceded that you did not see Mr Timms in circumstances where you should have. He conceded that it was open to me to find that fatigue must have played a role on the evidence. There was in addition your speed of 59 kilometres per hour, which is almost 50 percent above the prescribed speed limit for the CBD. Mr Mandy submitted that neither the dangerousness of your driving, nor your moral culpability could be viewed as high.
49Your counsel, Mr Mandy, accepted the primary sentencing consideration of general deterrence, yet submitted that sentencing purposes could be sufficiently addressed by the imposition either of a long community correction order with punitive conditions or alternatively, a sentence that combined a term of imprisonment with a community correction order.
50In support of this submission Mr Mandy urged upon me the following:
·Your genuine remorse, which is evidenced by all of the evidence on the plea, not only the written reports of Ms Kobatsiari and Ms Abadee but also the oral evidence given by Ms Abadee. He stated that in the weeks immediately following the collision, you were aghast by what had happened. You stopped using drugs, you went to see a psychologist and you have relived the accident again and again in your mind. I have read the letter that you have written to the court, Exhibit 7GM.
Mr Maranis, I accept that you are genuinely remorseful for your actions and that if you could put the clock back you would. Unfortunately that is not a course that is open to you, nor to anyone.·Your plea of guilty. This plea of guilty attracts not only the utilitarian benefit, in terms of savings to the court and the community of the time and expense and trauma to witnesses of having a trial, but in addition should be viewed by me as another indication of your remorse. Can I make it clear, Mr Maranis, I give you full credit for that guilty plea under both of those headings.
·The delay and “uncertain suspense” under which that delay had placed you. In considering the chronology of this prosecution, you were not charged until 7 February 2017. That is almost a year after the collision. Upon enquiry of Mr Brown, learned counsel for the prosecution, it appears that this delay was accounted for by the time taken, firstly, to interrogate your phone and then to obtain the report from Professor Naughton. I afford such weight as I can to the delay. But I note that the delay also enabled you to begin the steps towards your rehabilitation.
·Your prospects for rehabilitation. Ms Abadee gave evidence on the plea describing how you came to her, after having been referred in September 2017, with "a heavy heart". She described the work that you had done, the excellent, indeed, exceptional progress that you have made and how, as is so often the case, drugs were not the issue, but they rather concealed what lay beneath. You now understand that you were a spoilt kid, you now understand that you have had a privileged life. You are now able to own your feelings, to recognise them as feelings, to write them down and then talk about them, all of which are immensely positive signs. There is, of course, a terrible, indeed a tragic irony that it has apparently taken this crime, with its destruction of a life, to make you seriously address your drug use and engage for the first time in a sustained and meaningful way with treatment. Ms Abadee made it clear that therapeutic sessions could be maintained, even if you were in a custodial setting. You have the support of your family, who sit in court now, your priest, and your new partner. These are protective factors in support of your rehabilitation.
51In conclusion, Mr Mandy submitted that your plea of guilty, your remorse, the delay, your prospects of rehabilitation, all in combination to some extent balanced out the objective gravity of your offending and placed, in his words, a “downward pressure” upon the appropriate sentence and thus enabled a community correction order, either standing alone or in combination, to be imposed.
52Upon due consideration, I cannot agree with that submission.
53Mr Maranis, in my view, this was a serious example of this offending. I find that the dangerousness of your driving lay in your lack of sleep. Now, I stress that drugs plays no part in the dangerousness of your driving that is alleged by the prosecution and it plays no part in my assessment of that dangerousness, I make that very clear. Rather, drug use merely explains the lack of sleep that you had over the two days prior to the collision.
54That you were not in control of your vehicle at the time of the collision is beyond dispute. Whether that loss of control was due to your excessive fatigue, to feeling sleepy or actually falling asleep momentarily is an immaterial distinction, when as here your fatigue resulted in the loss of control of your vehicle. You got into your car and you drove in such a state of fatigue. The injuries to Mr Timms have been catastrophic and further, you must have known both the extent of your fatigue and the self-evident and obvious risks attendant upon getting into your vehicle. I consider your moral culpability to be high.
55Mr Maranis, in sentencing you I must have regard to a range of different factors. I must give effect to principles of both general deterrence and specific deterrence, that means I must deter other from behaving like you did and I must deter you from any repetition of such behaviour. I must express the community’s denunciation of your conduct and I should promote, if possible, your rehabilitation. I take into account the effect your crimes have had on your victim and I must have regard to current sentencing practices, as determined and described by the Court of Appeal for this kind of offence, and to the maximum penalty. In short, I must try and balance your personal circumstances with the circumstances of your offending.
56Clearly, principles of general deterrence, specific deterrence and denunciation are the primary sentencing considerations in this case. I accept, Mr Maranis, that you now begin to realise that it is you and you alone who is responsible for your actions and for their consequences. That shift and that assumption of personal responsibility indeed does bode well for your future.
57Whilst there are of course grounds for optimism as to your prospects for rehabilitation, I am of the view that there is a need for caution. It seems there have been in the past periods of excellent progress and rehabilitation, which have then been followed by you returning to drug use and offending. In my view, the need for specific deterrence may be reduced but it is not entirely eliminated.
58I give full effect to all of the mitigatory factors to which I have been referred, in particular your remorse, your early plea of guilty, the steps you have taken towards your rehabilitation, and to those future prospects of rehabilitation.
59Nonetheless, the objective gravity of the offending and the need to send a very clear message to any young men, like yourself, who might be tempted to get into vehicles when they are fatigued and have not slept, requires, in my view, a term of imprisonment longer than that which could be combined with a community correction order.
60On the charge of dangerous driving causing serious injury, you are sentenced to a term of imprisonment of two years and six months. I fix a non-parole period of 18 months.
61On Charge 2, I sentence you to a term of imprisonment of one month and that is to run concurrently.
62That makes a total effective sentence of two years and six months, with a non-parole period of 18 months.
63Your licence is cancelled and you are disqualified from obtaining a new licence for a period of two years.
64Pursuant to s.6AAA of the Sentencing Act, had you not pleaded guilty, you would have been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of three years and six months with a non-parole period of two years and nine months.
65Mr Brown, there was a disposal order.
66MR BROWN: Yes, I think there is a draft one, Your Honour, I think ‑ ‑ ‑
67HIS HONOUR: Yes, I think my associate has one, I will sign that now.
68MR BROWN: And I assume the ‑ ‑ ‑
69HIS HONOUR: Yes.
70MR BROWN: ‑ ‑ ‑ defence have had ‑ ‑ ‑
71HIS HONOUR: I understood - sorry, Mr Mandy, I understood ‑ ‑ ‑
72MR MANDY: It's not a problem.
73HIS HONOUR: ‑ ‑ ‑ it wasn't opposed.
74Mr Maranis, there are no winners here. That is quite clear, I wish you all the best that I can with your rehabilitation. Your future depends upon your ability to remain drug free.
75Mr Mandy, are there any particular custody management issues?
76MR MANDY: No, Your Honour.
77HIS HONOUR: Obviously this will be the first time ‑ ‑ ‑
78MR MANDY: No, Your Honour.
79HIS HONOUR: ‑ ‑ ‑ and I shall send a note. And Mr Brown, Mr Mandy, I'll make my unrevised sentencing remarks available to the parties, upon request, as soon as I can.
80MR BROWN: If Your Honour pleases.
81MR MANDY: Thank you, Your Honour.
82HIS HONOUR: Yes. Can I say to the members of Mr Timms family that I have noted and I thank you for the dignity and grace with which you have conducted yourselves in this court proceeding. And can I say that also to the family of Mr Maranis, these are difficult matters indeed and the dignity and grace that you have displayed, I am grateful for. Anything else, gentlemen?
83MR MANDY: No, Your Honour.
84MR BROWN: No.
‑ ‑ ‑
Annexure 1
IN THE COUNTY COURT Indictment No. H10337087
OF VICTORIA
AT MELBOURNE
Court Reference: CR-17-01976
IN THE MATTER OF Section 182 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS
V
GEORGE MARANIS
AMENDED SUMMARY OF PROSECUTION OPENING
Date of document: 12 January, 2018
Filed on behalf of: Director of Public Prosecutions
Prepared by:
John CainSolicitor’s Code:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions Telephone:
565 Lonsdale Street Direct:
Melbourne VIC 3000 Ref:
1.On Tuesday the 16th day of February, 2016 at about 5.11 AM Christopher Timms was crossing the road at the intersection of Latrobe and William Streets in Melbourne when he was struck by a car driven by George Maranis. As a result of the collision Christopher Timms suffered a severe brain injury and multiple fractured bones.
2.At the time of the collision Christopher Timms was 50 years old. He lived a transient lifestyle working as a busker in Melbourne as well as playing drums in 2 bands. He had 2 teenage children and elderly parents to whom he was close.
3.George Maranis was 24 years old at the time of the collision. At the time of the collision he was driving a black 2004 BMW X5 which was owned by his father. The car was powered by a 6 cylinder engine with automatic transmission.
4.Prior to the collision Christopher Timms is captured walking along the northern footpath of Latrobe Street heading in a westerly direction towards William Street.[1] Once he reached William Street he crossed over Latrobe Street to head to the southeast corner of the intersection.
[1] CCTV footage from 390 Latrobe Street and the AFP Building
5.The intersection is a major CBD intersection. William Street lies in a general north to South alignment and it intersects with Latrobe Street which lies in a general east to west alignment. The intersection is a 4 way cross intersection with one lane of travel in each direction. Each direction also has a left turning lane. Provision to turn right exists by way of a “hook turn” in each direction which is performed from the left hand lane of each carriageway. Provision also exists for trams to travel in each direction with a tram stop in the middle of each road approximately 20 metres back from the intersection. The intersection is controlled by traffic control signals which systematically controls vehicles, trams and pedestrians. The road was lit be street lighting and the posted speed limit for Latrobe Street at the collision scene was 40 Km/h.
6.As Christopher Timms was crossing Latrobe Street George Maranis was driving his BMW X5 in a westerly direction along Latrobe Street towards William Street and just before he reached the intersection his car veered left and his front passenger wheel struck the edge of the footpath near the south east corner of the intersection.[2] He continued on for a very short distance and struck Christopher Timms with the front passenger side of his vehicle. Christopher Timms then came into contact with the bonnet and windscreen of the car and was thrown in the air before coming to rest near the north bound lane gutter of William Street.
[2] Photobook, photograph 3 to 5 and photograph at p 73
7.Christopher Timms belongings and busking instruments were strewn across the south side of the intersection. After colliding with Christopher Timms the BMW skidded to a stop on the southern pedestrian crossing of William Street before being driven to its rest position on Latrobe Street just west of the intersection.
8.CCTV footage from the AFP Building in Latrobe Street captures George Maranis’ BMW going past the building at 5.11 AM travelling towards William Street with the traffic light applicable to him being green.
9.D/L/S/C Michael Hardiman[3] who is an expert in accident reconstruction attended the collision scene and examined the scene for the purpose of preparing a report. Based on the scrap marks on the southern gutter of Latrobe Street just prior to the intersection and the damage to the passenger side front wheel of the BMW he concluded that the front passenger wheel of the BMW mounted the gutter at that point. The BMW continued on and struck Christopher Timms. From the debris on the roadway he formed the view that Christopher Timms was very close to the southern curb of the south eastern side of the intersection when he was struck.
[3] Report prepared by D/L/S/C Hardiman, p 64
10.D/L/S/C Hardiman observed 2 post collision skid marks within the intersection which led into the southern pedestrian crossing of William Street. He noted that there was no physical evidence to prove that the vehicle was braking prior to it colliding with the pedestrian. From the skid marks on the roadway D/L/S/C Hardiman formed the opinion that the BMW was travelling at a minimum speed 59 Km/h when it commenced post impact skidding within the intersection.
11.Christopher Timms was treated at the scene by paramedics and was subsequently conveyed to the Royal Melbourne Hospital with life threatening injuries.
12.Christopher Timms was treated at the Royal Melbourne Hospital for a severe traumatic brain injury. A CT scan revealed a suffered a fractured skull with bilateral subdural haematomas, intracerebral haemorrhage and subarachnoid haemorrhage.[4] He also suffered fractures to both his cheekbones. His period of post traumatic amnesia was subsequently estimated at 137 days indicating a very severe brain injury. He was transferred to the brain injury rehabilitation programme at the Epworth Hospital on the 22nd day March, 2016 where he remained until late 2016. Professor John Oliver who treated Christopher Timms at the Epworth Hospital expressed the view that as a result of his brain injury Christopher Timms would require ongoing supervised care for the rest of his life.
[4] Report prepared by Professor John Oliver, p 109
13.Christopher Timms also suffered other injuries including a fractured left femur, a fractured left elbow, sternal and rib fractures on both sides as well as L2 to 5 fractures. He also suffered abdominal injuries including liver and splenic lacerations.
14.George Maranis remained at the scene until he was arrested and conveyed to the North Melbourne Police Station. At the police station he co-operated with the investigating police officers but answered “no comment” to questions in his record of interview[5].
[5] Receord of Interview, p 93
15.Police searched the BMW at the scene and located a number of pills in the upper tray of the centre console. Two of the pills contained a drug of dependence, namely Diazepam (Valpam) (Charge 2). There were also 2 Stilnox pills amongst the pills in the centre console. Police also located under the front of the BMW what appeared to be a bulb of glass smoking device broken in 2 pieces.
16.Investigating police subsequently obtained the mobile telephone records for the telephone George Maranis was using in the days leading up to the collision.[6] L/S/C Dawn Pascoe[7] conducted an analysis of the phone records for the 53 hours leading up to the collision and prepared a chart showing the use of the telephone in hourly blocks which are further broken down into blocks of 15 minutes each.[8]
[6] P 114
[7] Statement of L/S/C Dawn Pascoe, p 85
[8] P 121
17.The analysis of the telephone reveals that George Maranis was constantly using his telephone to make calls, sending text messages and browsing in the 53 hours leading up to the collision. The longest break from using the telephone was approximately 4 hours and 45 minutes from 12.33 AM on the 14th day of February, 2016 (more than 2 days prior to the collision). The second longest period was at 6.49 AM on the 14th day of February, 2016 when it was not used for about 2 hours and 30 minutes. The longest other period the telephone was not used for was approximately 1 hour and 15 minutes in the 53 hour period. In the 24 hours prior to the collision the longest period the telephone was not used was 45 minutes.
18.Police provided Professor Matthew Naughton, a Sleep Disorder and Respiratory Physician at the Alfred Hospital with LS/C Pascoe’s analysis of the usage of George Maranis’ telephone and requested him to comment about the possibility of fatigue being a factor in the collision. The professor noted that the only 5 hour period for potential uninterrupted sleep was between 0046 and 0546 on the 14th day of February, 2016. So the last period of solid sleep was 48 hours prior to the collision. The analysis indicated that the telephone was in use for most of the time in the 44 hours leading up to the collision.
19.Professor Naughton expressed the opinion that in those circumstances George Maranis would have been profoundly sleep deprived prior to the collision. Furthermore, that brief power naps during that period would not have been sufficient to alleviate the degree of sleepiness. Professor Naughton concluded that sleep deprivation of such severity was extremely likely to have contributed to the collision. It is estimated that a person has impaired driving capacity after 24 hours sleep deprivation akin to a blood alcohol reading of 0.1% and so the driver would be at high risk of error whilst driving.
MAXIMUM PENALTIES
Dangerous driving serious injury – 5 years imprisonment (S 319(1A) of the Crimes Act 1958) and mandatory cancellation of any driver’s licence held and disqualification from obtaining a licence for a minimum period of 18 months.(S89(2)(a) of the Sentencing Act 1991)
PRE-SENTENCE DETENTION
Nil
ANCILLIARY ORDERS
TBA
FORENSIC SAMPLE
George MARANIS is already DNA profiled.
VICTIMIMPACT STATEMENTS
Amy Nanette Timms (mother)
Robert Leslie Timms (father)
Jorgia Georgakopoulos (ex-wife)
Ella-Mia Georgakopoulos (daughter)
Kallista Georgakopoulos (daughter)
CHRONOLOGY
16 February 2016 – Offence and Arrest
7 February 2017 – Filing Hearing
10 April 2017 – Committal Case Conference (Set down for 2 day Committal on 27 & 28 September 2017)
27 September 2017 – Committal (Matter resolved before hearing commenced and matter booked in for County Court Plea Hearing on 21 February 2018)
2
0
0