Director of Public Prosecutions v Mathiasson
[2025] VCC 1619
•10 November 2025
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA AT MELBOURNE CRIMINAL DIVISION | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
Case No. CR-25-00452
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| CONNOR MATHIASSON |
---
JUDGE: | HARPER | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 24 October 2025 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 10 November 2025 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Mathiasson | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2025] VCC 1619 | |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject:CRIMINAL LAW
Catchwords: Culpable driving, negligently causing serious injury
Legislation Cited: Sentencing Act 1991
Cases Cited:R v Mills [1998] 4 VR 235, Azzopardi & Ors v the Queen [2011] VSCA 372, DPP v Hill [2012] VSCA 144, R v Verdins [2007] VSCA 102, Rakatau v R [2021] VSCA 76, Victorsen v R [2020] VSCA 248, Phongthaihong v R [2021] VSCA 317, DPP v Reid [2020] VSCA 247, DPP v Agius [2025] VCC 993
Sentence: TES: 11 years imprisonment NPP: 7 years imprisonment
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the DPP | Mr N Hutton SC | Ms A Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Mr R Nathwani KC | Doogue + George |
HER HONOUR:
1Connor Mathiasson, you have pleaded guilty before me to one charge of culpable driving causing the death of Elise Hodder and one charge of negligently causing serious injury to Emma Swords.
2The maximum penalty for culpable driving is 20 years imprisonment and the maximum penalty for negligently causing serious injury is 10 years imprisonment. Culpable driving has a standard sentence of 8 years, the meaning of which I will return to.
Circumstances of offending
3The circumstances of your offending were comprehensively outlined in the Summary of Prosecution Opening dated 15 October 2025. I have also viewed CCTV and Body Worn Camera footage of the incident and the aftermath. I will summarise the circumstances here.
4On the night of 12 October 2024, you went to a rave near the Sir Zelman Cowen car park at 458 Kooyong Road, Kooyong with your friends Soda Pop White, Aiden Creevey and Joshua Creevey.
5You were not licensed to drive, your licence having expired on 9 July 2023.
6You had driven your friends in your gold Holden Commodore sedan from Sunbury to the rave, leaving at about 10.30pm and arriving between 11.30 and midnight. You and your friends shared a 10 pack of premixed Jack Daniel’s and Coke cans during the drive.
7You continued to drink at the rave. At about 1am your group decided to leave the rave and all got into your car, with you driving. Ms White was in the front passenger seat and the Creevey brothers were in the back.
8At the same time, Elise Hodder and her friends Emma Swords, Hugh, Jeremy Orr, Olivia Fahey and Beau arrived at the Sir Zelman Cowen car park. They got out of the car and walked through the car park.
9Coincidentally, a marked police vehicle was present in the car park at this time. Officers Nagao and Clinton commenced their body worn camera footage at 1.07am on 13 October 2024, meaning that the incident before the court occurred at 1.06am.
10SC Nagao described what happened as follows “…out of the corner of my right eye, I saw a vehicle travel north in the carpark approximately 25m in front of me at an extremely fast rate of speed. I’d say 60km/h or something. The vehicle was a gold-coloured sedan and drove straight into a group of pedestrians in the carpark to the left-hand side of us. From what I remember it was the front of the car which impacted the group of pedestrians. I saw one person go under the engine block area of the vehicle, get dragged under. The vehicle went backwards a bit then accelerated forwards again over the pedestrian and into a white wagon which was parked. Hitting the parked vehicle prevented the gold-coloured sedan from going further forward.”
11The police officers moved their vehicle to block your car in. SC Nagao removed you from your vehicle and arrested you. Elise Hodder was trapped beneath your vehicle. Emma Swords was hit by your vehicle and was seriously injured. Jeremy Orr was knocked to the ground by your vehicle.
12SC Nagao asked why you had driven over the pedestrians and you said “I’m so sorry. I didn’t mean it. I didn’t mean it. I didn’t mean it.” You were handcuffed while the officers attended to your victims.
13SC Nagao went to Ms Hodder and tried to comfort her. He did so for some 5 minutes until she lost consciousness and stopped breathing. It was later determined that Ms Hodder died from chest injuries and mechanical traumatic asphyxia.
14Ms Swords suffered two badly broken ankles which were repaired during several surgeries using pins and plates. She was wheelchair bound for some 10 weeks and had to learn to walk again.
15Mr Orr sustained minor rib and knee injuries.
16A preliminary breath test revealed your alcohol concentration to be 0.177%. A later blood sample revealed a blood alcohol concentration of 0.213%. Your blood further contained metabolites of cocaine and cannabis, however it cannot be determined when you took these substances so they are referred to as context only, not one of the bases of your culpability.
17Investigations conducted by LSC Timothy Bail, an accident reconstructionist, determined that your vehicle had been parked nose in (facing south) to a parking bay in the car park. You reversed out and made a left steering input, resulting in the front of the vehicle rotating clockwise. Your car impacted the rear of a Nissan vehicle before colliding with the pedestrians. The driver's side of your car impacted with the rear of a Haval vehicle. The pedestrians were hit, and the Haval was rotated anticlockwise. Your brakes were not applied at the time of impact.
18Your vehicle continued to rotate until it was facing north, approximately 180 degrees from its initial position. You then drove forward, over Ms Hodder and colliding with Ms Swords and Mr Orr. You continued accelerating, pushing the Haval approximately 90 degrees until it mounted the gutter.
19You have pleaded guilty to culpable driving on the basis that you were under the influence of alcohol to such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control of a motor vehicle, your blood alcohol concentration being between 0.177% and 0.213%, and on the basis of negligence, the negligence being that you:
(a) Were under the influence of alcohol;
(b) Failed to keep a proper lookout while reversing;
(c) Reversed at speed in a car park open to the public;
(d) Impacted 2 vehicles that were parked behind your vehicle;
(e) Impacted a group of pedestrians who were walking in the vicinity of your vehicle;
(f) Failed to immediately stop the vehicle on impact with the vehicles and pedestrians;
(g) Failed to keep a proper lookout while driving forward after the initial collisions;
(h) Drove forward at speed in a car park open to the public; and
(i) Again impacted one of the 2 vehicles and the group of pedestrians.
20You have pleaded guilty to negligently causing serious injury to Ms Swords on the same bases of negligence.
Objective gravity and moral culpability
21For context, you were caught by a speed camera on your way to the rave driving in excess of the speed limit. You were unlicenced. You were drinking while driving. You had metabolites of cocaine and cannabis in your system. While not part of the charges before the court, all of these factors demonstrate your contempt for the safety of other road users on the night in question.
22The objective gravity of the offending before the court could not be higher. Ms Hodder has lost her life. Ms Swords’ future has been irreparably damaged. All those who know and love them have been impacted and will continue to be so. All because you chose to drive negligently while significantly affected by alcohol.
23It has been suggested that someone in the car yelled “go forward” after the initial striking of the pedestrians. This may well have been the case; however, you were the driver and responsible for paying proper attention to your surrounds. It is in no way mitigatory but perhaps reflects an element of panic in the moments the offending took place.
24You assert through your counsel that you intended to leave the car in Melbourne. I find this an unlikely proposition but not one with any bearing on the outcome of the case. The fact is, you did drive the car after the rave and you did hit Ms Hodder and Ms Swords. You will have to live with that decision for the rest of your life.
25Your blood alcohol was between 3 and 4 times the legal limit. Your driving was erratic and while of short duration, was fast and dangerous and placed 3 people in direct risk of harm, a risk that was so tragically realised.
26Taking into account your voluntary substance use, the nature and extent of the injuries inflicted on your victims, the number of people put at risk by your driving and the nature of the driving itself, I find your moral culpability to be very high.
Victim Impact
27I received 25 Victim Impact Statements in this matter,13 of which were read to the court. All very eloquently detailed the impact of your offending on Ms Hodder’s family and friends and on Ms Swords and her family and friends. You have taken the life of one much loved young woman and seriously injured another. The grief you have caused is immeasurable.
28Michael Hodder, Ms Hodder’s father, told the court of the depth of his loss and the devastation of losing his daughter. His “heart and soul have been torn apart.” He stated “There is not healing. The wound remains open. I grieve daily while trying to support her mum, her brothers, their partners and their daughters. Elises’ death should never have happened … Our lives are forever changed, and Elise has none.” As Mr Hodder said, “No family should ever have to bury their child in such cruel and evil circumstances.”
29Pauline Courtney, Ms Hodder’s mother, told the court that “the loss of Elise, in such sudden and horrific circumstances, has been utterly devastating. The experience of being woken at 6am by two police officers at our door and being told that Elise had been killed by a drunk driver was beyond traumatic. There are no words to describe that level of shock and disbelief … The thought of that being the end of her life and in those circumstances, without me or Michael there to comfort her, is unbearable. As her parents, we had always protected her and kept her safe. I would have lain beside her, kept her warm, kissed her, comforted her, and told her that we loved her. I would have said goodbye. What a violent, cruel ending for my gentle, loving girl.”
30Ms Hodder’s parents were required to identify her but due to the extent of her injuries, much of her body had to remain covered. This caused them further profound sadness, as has the loss of future milestones and achievements. As Ms Courtney stated, ‘The emotional impact of Elise’s death has been catastrophic.”
31Emma Swords’ detailed the guilt she suffers for having survived the collision and how she recalls images of her friend dying beside her. She also outlined the horrific injuries she suffered as a result of your driving, the multiple operations, the metal fixation and casts on her ankles for months. She has lost her job, her apartment, her friends and her independence, having had to return to her family interstate. She stated “I will never be the person I was before that night. I will carry this loss, this grief and this fear into everything I do … I saw my best friend die. I survived in a way that haunts me.”
32Friends and relatives of Ms Hodder variously described felling her loss as “a constant weight of sadness, anger and helplessness,” a roller coaster,” “complete emptiness,” “suffocating in grief” and “like drowning.”
33Friends and relatives of Ms Swords note her mental and physical suffering and her withdrawal from them because of “the fear and trauma she now carries.”
34While I have only quoted from several of them, I take the contents of each Victim Impact Statement into account and recognise the catastrophic impact of the offending. These statements are an important factor in the sentencing synthesis, however I must take care not let the consequences of your offending overwhelm other sentencing considerations.
Plea of guilty and remorse
35You offered to plead guilty to the offending in July 2025. You counsel submitted that you were always going to plead guilty but that was not clear until after your receipt of the statement of Dr Schreiber, you having previously offered to plead to a lesser alternative. I accept that after the additional statement was served you indicated a plea and entered pleas to the current indictment.
36While I do not find your plea was entered at the earliest stage, no witnesses were cross-examined. Your plea has significant utilitarian benefit in that you have saved the court and the community the time and expense of running a trial and most importantly, spared the witnesses the ordeal of giving evidence. In those circumstances, you have facilitated the administration of justice and you are entitled to a benefit for that.
37By your plea of guilty, you have accepted responsibility for your offending and demonstrated ongoing remorse. You made immediate expressions of remorse at the scene and were appropriately distressed upon hearing the victim impact statements.
38You told Mr Newton that you “still think about the accident and its effects – maybe twice a day. Thinking about how it affected people and how it still would be [affecting them]. I know how it feels to lose someone abruptly, and that fact – that I am the one who made the decision that caused it to happen to them – is really hurtful. But prison is more on my mind. It’s hard not to think about [prison] all the time. I am worried about the victim and the victim’s friends and I have written letters [to them]. But I’m not sure about sending them. It was pretty difficult, they just seem to want me dead. I would probably want the same thing.”
39You are clearly immature, as reflected in your statement that prison is on your mind while others are so clearly suffering as a result of your actions. While you have displayed a concern for your own future, I find that this co-exists with your remorse.
Personal circumstances and psychological material
40I turn now to your personal circumstances.
41You are now 24 years old, having been born in February 2001. You were 23 at the time of the collision. You have an older brother and a younger paternal half-brother.
42You were initially raised in Riddells Creek but your mother, who suffered from schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and severe post-natal depression found the location isolating and your family moved to Sunbury when you were about 6.
43You father was a senior executive and was often interstate or overseas for work. Your parents protected you and your brother from your mother’s mental illnesses as best they could, but your early years were turbulent. Your mother was often hospitalised and visiting her was a regular weekend activity for your family
44Your parents separated when you were aged 12 and after living with your mother for a brief period, you moved to live with your father. Your father commenced a new relationship when you were about 15 years of age and after some initial difficulties, you now get on well with his new partner.
45In 2017, when you were 16 years of age, your mother took her own life. According to Patrick Newton, whose report I shall return to, you experienced “a complicated grief response incorporating strong feelings of loss together with intensely ambivalent feelings regarding the circumstances of her death and the illness that had preceded it.” You did not receive and psychological treatment at this time.
46You attended local schools before attending Collingwood College for a brief period. You completed year 10 before leaving formal education. You have working in a range of unskilled positions including assisting with carpentry, plastering and cabinet making. Your employment has been interrupted by your substance use. Since this incident you worked casually at a fish and chip shop but this employment petered out.
47Your cannabis use commenced in high school and you were using at the time of your mother’s death. Your use escalated thereafter. You drank in your teenage years but did so heavily from the age of 17. It was at this time you also began to use party drugs such as MDMA and stimulants and on occasion, hallucinogens. Following the collision, you continued to use cannabis for several months but have now ceased its use. You have not been intoxicated since the collision.
48You were involved in a serious relationship for about 2 years in the period leading up to the collision, but it suffered due to your heavy substance abuse. While the relationship had an on/off phase, it ultimately concluded a couple of weeks before the collision.
49I received a report and addendum report from clinical and forensic psychologist Patrick Newton dated 15 October 2025 and 21 October 2025 respectively. He diagnosed you with severe substance use disorder in remission, post-traumatic stress disorder in partial remission and mild to moderate major depressive disorder.
50Mr Newton opined that it was the substance use which had the most significant impact on your offending behaviour as the PTSD was precipitated by the collision and the depressive disorder only reached diagnosable significance as a result of the collision. “These effects [being your offending] were the result of self-induced, extreme consumption of alcohol and other drugs which took place on a voluntary basis and with full awareness of the likely effects it would induce and the risks this posed.”
51That is, the drug and alcohol use which you voluntarily engaged in, was the cause of this collision. While you would have been “behaviourally disinhibited, had difficulties exercising appropriate judgement and making reasoned decisions,” as a long time drug and alcohol user, you well knew that these were the consequences of your substance use. Yet you chose to drive.
52Mr Newton further opined that your offending took place in the context of your immaturity. Your immaturity did not cause the collision but it is something that needs to be addressed in your rehabilitation, a factor to which I will return. Being immature, your “moral reasoning is prone to be ‘pragmatic’ and ‘self-focused.”
Sentencing principles and considerations
53Mr Mathiasson, this was a catastrophic collision, entirely of your own doing. You chose to drink to excess and then to drive. You were a collision waiting to happen and there is now no undoing the consequences of your overwhelmingly negligent behaviour.
54At 23 years of age at the time of the offending and 24 now, you are not a young offender but are still youthful. I must therefore give weight to your rehabilitation as per the principles in R v Mills [1998] 4 VR 235 and Azzopardi v the Queen [2011] VSCA 372.
55In DPP v Hill [2012] VSCA 144, however, the Court of Appeal stated at [50] that “while rehabilitation of a young offender is a very important consideration in sentencing, the authorities … demonstrate that it must sometimes give way to other sentencing considerations, particularly general deterrence and denunciation.”
56That is so here and despite your age and immaturity, which I do take into account, general deterrence must play a significant role in the sentencing exercise given the over-representation of young men in culpable driving cases before the courts. “Unfortunately the offence of culpable driving is one which is frequently committed by young drivers. If general deterrence is to be meaningful, it must be directed towards this class of offenders and cannot be regarded as irrelevant because of their youth.”[1]
[1] DPP v Hill [2012] VSCA 144 at [51]
57Just punishment and denunciation are also important factors, given the loss of life and serious injury resulting from your offending.
58As submitted by your counsel, specific deterrence has less of a role to play in the sentencing exercise than general deterrence, although I disagree with the proposition that it has no work to do. You have one irrelevant prior matter and have had 2 speeding infringements but the impact of your imprisonment is likely to be salutary. I take your previous good character into account.
59When released on bail you complied with the Court Integrated Services Program (CISP) and underwent AOD counselling and psychological counselling. You were exited from CISP upon successful completion of these treatment programs.
60In light of this, I consider your prospects of rehabilitation to be good, dependent on you engaging with further drug and alcohol treatment and further psychological counselling. You are immature but will be spending a considerable period of time in custody in which you can undertake rehabilitative programs.
61Similarly, I consider community protection to be a reduced consideration if you engage with treatment. Should you do so, I consider you are unlikely to reoffend in this way.
62You family are a pro-social influence on you and have and will no doubt continue to support you upon your release.
63It was submitted on your behalf that limbs 5 and 6 of R v Verdins [2007] VSCA 102 have application in your case, that is, that a term of imprisonment would weigh more heavily on you than on a person in normal health and that there is a serious risk of imprisonment having an adverse effect on your mental health.
64Based on the report of Mr Newton, I find that your post-traumatic stress disorder in partial remission and mild to moderate major depressive disorder call for a modest reduction in sentence pursuant to limb 5 of Verdins.
65I am not, however, persuaded that limb 6 has application. Mr Newton opined that “in a custodial context, [your] youth and immaturity, [your] vulnerability to negative influence, [your] status as a first-time prisoner and [your] pre-existing emotional distress would all pose challenges. It would be likely that [you] would require a greater level of support as a result of such factors.”
66That a greater level of support is required is not an indication that your psychological conditions will deteriorate in custody, rather that you should be monitored and helped to adjust. While not applying Verdins limb 6, I nevertheless take this factor into account generally.
67The standard sentencing regime applies to charge 1 with a standard sentence of 8 years. The standard sentence for an offence is a sentence that, taking into account only the objective factors affecting the relative seriousness of that offence, is in the middle range of seriousness. I must take the standard sentence into account as one of the factors relevant to sentencing. This requirement is to be treated as a legislative guidepost having the same function as the maximum penalty. It does not affect the established instinctive synthesis to sentencing or require or permit two-stage sentencing.
68The Court must only have regard to sentences imposed in cases where the standard sentence regime applies. I have taken the standard sentence for culpable driving into account as one of the factors to consider in my instinctive synthesis of all the relevant factors in your case.
69Further, where a court is sentencing an offender in respect of two or more offences, one of which is a standard sentence, the court must fix a non-parole period of 60% of the relevant term where the relevant term is less than 20 years.
70Culpable driving is also a Category 2 offence meaning I must not impose a term of imprisonment in combination with a Community Correction Order unless one of the exceptions in s.5(2H)) of the Sentencing Act 1991 is met. No such exceptions were argued here.
71I further apply the principle of totality, noting that the offending in each charge arises from the one incident. I must recognise the fact that there are two victims of your offending, but I moderate the cumulation so as to impose a sentence that is proportionate to your overall conduct.
Submissions
72Both parties submitted that the only available sentence is one comprising of a head sentence and non-parole period.
73Mr Hutton SC, for the prosecution, took me to several cases, namely Rakatau v R [2021] VSCA 76, Victorsen v R [2020] VSCA 248, Phongthaihong v R [2021] VSCA 317 and DPP v Reid [2020] VSCA 247. All involved pleas of guilty to culpable driving. Rakatau and Victorsen each involved 2 deaths. All involved other offences. Total effective sentences imposed ranged between 10 and 13 years.
74Mr Nathwani KC, appearing for you, took me to DPP v Reid [2020] VSCA 247 and DPP v Agius [2025] VCC 993. Reid involved a plea to culpable driving and other offences and Agius was a sentence imposed after a trial which involved culpable driving and negligently causing serious injury, resulting in a total effective sentence of 9 years and 8 months imprisonment.
75I take each of the cases to which I was referred into account by way of current sentencing practices, insofar as they are relevant to the instant matter.
76Finally, I remind everyone in court that the sentence I am about to impose is not, and is in no way intended to be, a reflection of the value of Ms Hodder’s life. No sentence this court can impose can in any way compensate for her loss. This is a sentence based in law, applying the principles of sentencing that I must take into account.
Disposition
77On charge 1, culpable driving, you are sentenced to 8 years 9 months imprisonment.
78On charge 2, negligently causing serious injury, you are sentenced to 4 years imprisonment.
79Charge 1 will be the base sentence.
80I direct that 2 years and 3 months of the sentence imposed on charge 2 be served cumulatively on the sentence imposed on charge 1.
81That makes a total effective sentence of 11 years imprisonment.
82I direct that you serve a minimum non-parole period of 7 years before being eligible for release on parole.
83I declare that pursuant to s.18 of the Sentencing Act 1991, you have served 18 days by way of pre-sentence detention.
84I declare that pursuant to s.89(1) of the Sentencing Act 1991, your licence is cancelled and disqualified for 9 years from today’s date.
85Pursuant to s.89C(1) of the Sentencing Act 1991, I make a finding that the offence was committed while you were under the influence of alcohol which contributed to the offence. This is to be noted on the record.
86I declare that pursuant to s.6AAA of the Sentencing Act 1991, had you not pleaded guilty to the offences before the court, the sentence I would have imposed would have been a total effective sentence of 13 years 6 months with a non-parole period of 9 years.
---
0
8
0