Director of Public Prosecutions v Nguyen
[2025] VCC 53
•4 February 2025
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA AT MELBOURNE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
Case No. CR-23-02050
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| PHILIP NGUYEN |
---
JUDGE: | HIS HONOUR JUDGE GAMBLE | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 10 and 12 December 2024 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 4 February 2025 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Nguyen | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2025] VCC 53 | |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject:CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence.
Catchwords: Dangerous driving causing serious injury – Recklessly cause injury – Failing to render assistance after a motor vehicle accident – Fail to report to police if person is injured – Learner driver driving vehicle without supervising driver.
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1958 (Vic), ss 18, 319; Road Safety Act 1986 (Vic), ss 18AB, 61; Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic), ss 6AAA, 18, 87P, 89.
Cases Cited:R v Verdins (2007) 16 VR 240.
Sentence: Total effective sentence of 2 years and 4 months’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 12 months.
s 6AAA:But for the plea of guilty, a total effective sentence of 3 ½ years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 2 years would have been imposed.
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Director of Public Prosecutions | Ms J. Malobabic (Plea) | Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Ms M. Greener | Emma Turnbull Lawyers |
---
HIS HONOUR:
Introduction
1Mr Nguyen, you have pleaded guilty on indictment[1] to one charge of dangerous driving causing serious injury,[2] one charge of recklessly causing injury[3] and one charge of failing to render assistance after a motor vehicle accident.[4]
[1] Indictment N12584068.
[2] Charge 1 pursuant to s 319(1A) of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic).
[3] Charge 2 pursuant to s 18 of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic).
[4] Charge 3 pursuant to s 61(3) of the Road Safety Act 1986 (Vic).
2The maximum penalty for each of dangerous driving causing serious injury and recklessly causing injury is five years’ imprisonment, while for failing to render assistance after a motor vehicle accident, it is 10 years’ imprisonment or 1200 penalty units.
3You have also consented to this court hearing and pleaded guilty to the summary offences of failing to report to police if a person is injured[5] and learner driver driving vehicle without supervising driver.[6] The maximum penalty for failing to report to police if a person is injured is eight months’ imprisonment or 80 penalty units, while for learner driver driving vehicle without supervising driver, it is six months’ imprisonment or 60 penalty units.
[5] Summary Charge 6 pursuant to s 61(1)(e) of the Road Safety Act 1986 (Vic).
[6] Summary Charge 7 pursuant to s 18AB(1) of the Road Safety Act 1986 (Vic).
4These offences arise from a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 31 October 2022. You were then aged 21 while the two victims, Margaret Paisa and Kelesi Mapa, were 17. You held a Victorian Learners Permit.
5You are now 24, having been born in January 2001.
Circumstances of the offending
6The circumstances of your offending are set out in some detail in the typed Summary of Prosecution Opening.[7] The basis on which you now fall to be sentenced was also discussed during the plea hearing. I have had regard to that opening and to those discussions when determining the appropriate sentence to impose in this case.
[7] Dated 29 November 2024 (Exhibit A).
7For present purposes, your offending can be summarised as follows.
8On 31 October 2022, you attended the Altona foreshore area with two friends, Samson Kaufana and Steven Piller, to participate in an advertised street parade celebrating the Rugby League World Cup. You travelled there in Mr Piller’s 2004 red Mini Cooper motor vehicle and took turns with him driving around the Altona CBD, mainly doings laps of the Esplanade and surrounding streets.
9At approximately 7:30pm, Ms Paisa attended the parade with her friend, Delilah Latonga. After being dropped off by Ms Paisa’s mother, the two girls consumed alcohol at a park.
10Around the same time, Ms Mapa arrived at the parade with her friend, Chyeann Sao. They walked around consuming alcohol until seeing Mr Piller’s red Mini Cooper which they recognised from a previous rugby parade.
11After climbing onto the roof of the vehicle with her friend, Ms Sao used her mobile phone to record the parade.[8]
[8] Exhibit C.
12At one point, the vehicle stopped and the two girls got down from the roof and socialised with you and your two male friends. The girls were provided with alcohol obtained from the vehicle, after which they left and went to the main area of the parade.
13Later that night, Ms Paisa and Ms Sao saw the Mini Cooper vehicle again. Ms Sao asked if she could get back onto the vehicle and the driver said yes. She and Ms Paisa then climbed up onto the roof, joining Ms Mapa and Ms Latonga who were now also sitting on the roof.
14At 9:06pm, a member of the public filmed you driving the vehicle while Mr Kaufana, Mr Piller, Ms Mapa and Ms Sao were seated on the roof. Prior to the accident occurring, a number of other witnesses saw the vehicle drive past on two separate occasions while the girls were on the roof.
15At approximately 11:30pm, you were in the driver’s seat, Mr Piller was in the passenger seat and the four girls were sitting on the roof of the vehicle: Ms Paisa was sitting on the rear passenger side with the antenna between her legs; Ms Mapa was beside her on the rear driver’s side; Ms Latonga was on the front driver’s side and Ms Sao was on the front passenger side.
16Ms Paisa then started filming on her mobile phone while the vehicle was stationary. As evidenced by the footage,[9] she told the driver to take them back to another location. After she and then another female repeated the request, you began to drive away at which time some of the girls can be heard to start laughing.
[9] Exhibit D.
17However, you then started to accelerate and drive in an erratic manner while loud music was being played in the vehicle. The nature of your driving caused one of the girls to tell you to slow down, although it is unlikely you heard what she said.
18On the recording, Ms Paisa can then be heard saying “Bro, if we fall off, I swear to God…”. At this point, you took a sharp turn too quickly from Davies Street onto the Esplanade which caused Ms Paisa, Ms Mapa and Ms Latonga to fall off the roof of the vehicle and onto the bitumen roadway.
19Ms Paisa and Ms Mapa landed on their heads and remained on the road unconscious. Ms Latonga was uninjured. Ms Paisa’s mobile phone was still recording at that point.
20During the turning manoeuvre, Ms Sao managed to stay on the vehicle by clinging onto the roof via the open driver’s side window. She told you that the other girls had fallen off and that you needed to stop and reverse the vehicle. You then reversed the vehicle as requested.
21Not realising the seriousness of the incident, Ms Sao filmed Ms Paisa and Ms Mapa laying on the road while telling them to get up. Ms Latonga attempted to help Ms Paisa up. Ms Sao was still laughing as she placed her phone through the driver’s window and filmed you laughing with her.[10] At this stage, Ms Latonga realised that there was blood on the road and was heard yelling “her head is bleeding”.
[10] Exhibit C.
22Mr Piller got out of the vehicle for only a brief period.
23You then proceeded to drive off for approximately 50 metres before stopping. You then reversed back towards the victims but then drove off again leaving Ms Sao, Ms Latonga and Mr Kaufana behind. Ms Paisa and Ms Mapa remained unresponsive.
24You proceeded west, going straight through the roundabout on Pier Street and the Esplanade.
25Approximately 10 minutes later, you again returned and drove past the scene of the accident.
26Your conduct in failing to render assistance to Ms Paisa and Ms Mapa before you left the scene of the accident forms the factual basis for the offence of failing to render assistance after a motor vehicle accident alleged in Charge 3 on the indictment.
27A passer-by called Triple 0. Police and ambulance members arrived at the scene a short time later by which time Mr Kaufana, Ms Mapa and Ms Sao had already left.
28Your failure to notify police of the details of the accident forms the basis for Summary Charge 6, fail to report to police if a person is injured.
29Ms Paisa was conveyed by ambulance to the Royal Melbourne Hospital in a critical condition. She remained unconscious and received life-saving brain surgery between 3:59am and 6:37am in relation to a traumatic brain injury.
30She was intubated and placed in an induced coma. She remained in a coma for two weeks, until she began responding to stimulus on 14 November. On 18 November, she was discharged from hospital and transferred to the Acquired Brain Injury Unit at Epworth Hospital where she underwent multidisciplinary rehabilitation, including having to re-learn motor skills.
31As a result of the accident, Ms Paisa has an acquired brain injury. She underwent neuropsychological assessment approximately seven weeks after the incident. Areas of significant reduction included speed of information processing, verbal and visual new learning and memory and executive function. Her cognitive profile was consistent with the severity of her brain injury. As she was still in the early stages of her recovery, it was deemed likely that with the passage of time and the use of compensatory strategies she would see improvement in areas of cognitive function.
32Ms Paisa was discharged from that unit on 22 November to live with her mother, younger siblings and her own one-year-old daughter.
33In December 2022, Ms Paisa was having weekly outpatient nurse visits, wearing a protective helmet and taking daily medication to manage her recovery. She also required further surgery to re-insert part of her skull.
34At 2:10am on 1 November 2022, Ms Mapa attended the Werribee Mercy Emergency Department and was treated for concussion and bloody grazes to her head, elbow, hands and feet.
35The manner in which you drove the Mini Cooper vehicle and the resultant injuries sustained by Ms Paisa and Ms Mapa provide the factual basis for the offences of dangerous driving causing serious injury and recklessly cause injury alleged in Charges 1 and 2 on the indictment, respectively.
36Further, your conduct in driving the Mini Cooper vehicle without an appropriate supervising driver sitting beside you forms the factual basis for Summary Charge 7, learner driver driving vehicle without supervising driver.
37As at 1 November 2022, the identity and occupants of the Mini Cooper vehicle were unknown and still under investigation. An appeal for information was broadcast on major news channels.
38At 1:04 pm on that same day, Mr Piller called the Sunshine police station and told police that he owned the Mini Cooper vehicle. He also claimed to have been driving that vehicle at the time of the accident. When he attended Altona police station a short time later, he was arrested. Soon afterwards, he revealed that he was not in fact the driver and that the actual driver was waiting for him nearby. In response to that information, police then located you and Mr Kaufana parked approximately 100 metres from the police station.
Arrest and interview
39You were then arrested and taken to the police station for interview.
40During the interview, you told the police the following things, inter alia:
·You had only driven the car once that night for no longer than three minutes, which was when the accident occurred;
·You drove at ‘a nice roll pace’ and were surprised that she had fallen off;
·The girls were drinking and asking for the last ride;
·We had told them to get off;
·In relation to you laughing immediately after the accident, as captured on the video from Ms Sao’s mobile phone, you were laughing at something that Mr Piller was doing in the passenger seat and not the accident;
·At that stage, you could see the girls were on the ground;
·You told Steve we should go and check on them. It was all laugh in the moments but then we realised it was serious;
·You reversed back and stuck your head out the window;
·You did not go out to check on them because you had told Mr Piller to do that and he said they were all fine because they had all got up;
·That is when you left;
·You then thought that’s not right and went back to check;
·No one mentioned any blood and you did not see any. If there was blood you would have gone back to check; and
·The moment you looked out, the girl was up, because someone was holding her up. You did not see her on the floor.
41A search of your mobile phone revealed that at 4:36 am on 1 November 2022, you googled the incident and then sent a screenshot of a news article to Mr Piller.
Charged and released on bail
42After being interviewed, you were charged and then released on bail. You have therefore spent no time on remand and so there is no period of pre-sentence detention to be declared in the event that you are given a custodial sentence today.
Victim impact
43Neither of the victims have made a victim impact statement.
44I note, however, that on 27 November 2023, Ms Paisa provided a statement to police in which she indicated that she did not blame you for what occurred or harbour any animosity.
Guilty plea
45You pleaded guilty to these charges at what I consider to be a very early stage.
Remorse
46Whilst you made some significant admissions when interviewed by the police, you also gave some answers that were designed to minimise what you had done. Yours was not a full and frank account of the night in question. However, since that time I am satisfied that you have accepted greater personal responsibility for what you did and developed a fuller sense of remorse.
Prior criminal history
47I note that you have a very limited prior criminal history, Mr Nguyen.
48As a result of your only previous court appearance, which occurred at Sunshine Magistrates’ Court on 15 September 2022, you were found guilty of unlawful assault and deal in property suspected of being proceeds of crime. For those two offences, you were placed on a 12 month Bond, without conviction.
49Whilst that record is limited and does not include any driving offences, it is a matter of some significance that within only six weeks of receiving that lenient sentence, you committed the current offences in clear breach of that Bond.
Personal circumstances
50I now turn to consider your personal circumstances, Mr Nguyen.
51They have been helpfully outlined by your counsel[11] and referred to in some detail in the initial report prepared by the psychologist, Jeffrey Cummins,[12] and to some extent in his later supplementary report.[13]
[11] See written submissions dated 9 December 2024 (Exhibit 1).
[12] Dated 28 September 2023 (Exhibit 2).
[13] Dated 5 December 2024 (Exhibit 3).
52Your mother was born in Vietnam to Vietnamese parents. She and your father separated when you were only two years of age. You have had no contact with your father since that time. Your mother re-partnered when you were aged eight and had three more sons while in that relationship which ended when you were aged 12.
53Presently, you live with your mother and those three younger half siblings.
54After finishing Year 12, you completed nine months of a two year diploma of tourism at William Angliss Institute. At that time you were struggling with your mental health as a result of witnessing your mother being assaulted by her father. Since that time, you have not had any contact with your maternal grandparents.
55Following the current incident, your mother encouraged you to work with her at her fruit and vegetable market business. You now work six days per week there and have a significant level of responsibility in that role.
56You also play a very active role in the care of your half-brothers, including by way of picking them up from school each day.
57Since March of 2023, you have been attending the Assembly of God Church with your cousin as part of your attempt to deal with your symptoms of depression.
58You were first assessed by Mr Cummins on 14 September 2023.
59He noted your feelings of upset and rejection in relation to the absence of your biological father and the major psychological impediment and hurdle that it has presented in your life to date. He also notes the traumatising nature of the verbal and physical abuse that you witnessed your mother receiving from your maternal grandfather.
60In Mr Cummins’ opinion, at the time of your current offending you were a relatively psychologically immature and significantly traumatised person who had drifted into spending time with friends who were not always positive influences. You were, in his view, also feeling chronically depressed in response to a dysfunctional upbringing including having an absent father and had been over-drinking alcohol as a means of managing your feelings of depression.
61Mr Cummins concluded that at the time of his initial assessment, you were still presenting with symptoms of a Major Depressive Disorder. In his view, your condition was of at least moderate severity and recurrent. As he also notes, you have never previously received any mental health treatment for your depression apart from being prescribed an antidepressant. It was his expectation in the event you received a custodial sentence, that your mental health would deteriorate significantly.
62In his second report dated 5 December 2024, Mr Cummins noted that you had attended for consultations on 8 October and 14 November 2024, with his encouragement. As he states, you participated enthusiastically in those consultations and he is prepared to continue treating you.
63With respect to your current offending, Mr Cummins is of the view that you have been and remain, remorseful for what happened. You expressed concern for the primary victim, Ms Paisa and told him that you felt embarrassed, guilty, ashamed and remorseful about your offending.
Matters in mitigation
64Your counsel was able to rely on a number of matters in mitigation on your behalf, Mr Nguyen, including the following.
65You co-operated with the police once arrested and made a number of admissions when interviewed.
66This matter resolved at a filing hearing on 1 December 2023, so at a very early stage. You have thereby demonstrated a willingness to facilitate the course of justice. The community has been saved the cost of a trial and the witnesses have been spared the ordeal of giving evidence. For pleading as and when you did, you are entitled to and will receive a commensurate discount in your sentence.
67Based on your plea and the observations of Mr Cummins and the authors of the tendered character references, I am satisfied that you are remorseful.
68You have had a difficult upbringing which has resulted in you experiencing compromised mental health. None of that is your fault.
69You enjoy ongoing support from your family and from within the community.
70As your referees attest, you have many good qualities and your current offending appears to be out of character.
71You appear to have a good work ethic and an established work history.
72You have not re-offended in the more than two year period since this incident occurred. In that sense the delay involved in this matter being finalised has illuminated your good prospects. It has also meant that you have had to deal with an uncertain future while waiting to learn your fate. It would be surprising if that had not caused you an added degree of anxiety over that period.
73You appear to have been trying to lead a more positive life with a view to improving your prospects of rehabilitation, which I consider to be very good. You no longer drink alcohol, preferring instead to attend church and immerse yourself in work and family activities. Furthermore, you have voluntarily consulted with a psychologist and taken antidepressant medication to assist you to try and deal with your mental health issues.
74Based on the observations and opinions of Mr Cummins, I am satisfied that limbs 5 and 6 of Verdins[14] have been engaged. You are clearly someone for whom imprisonment will present as a more burdensome experience as compared to prisoners of sound mental health, and your mental health will suffer as a result of having to serve any term of imprisonment.
[14] R v Verdins (2007) 16 VR 240.
75Before turning to deal with the gravity of your offending, I wish to note that your counsel also sought to rely on the attitude which Ms Paisa expressed to the police about you, including her desire not to see you punished. It is somewhat unclear as to what were the circumstances in which she came to make that statement. But whatever be the situation, two things are clear. First, you are in fact both morally and legally to blame for what occurred to her. And second, it is for this court not Ms Paisa to decide whether you should be punished and to what extent you should be punished. In all of the circumstances of this case, it is hard to see how the views expressed by that victim can be given much weight.
Gravity of the offending
76I now turn to deal with the gravity of your offending, Mr Nguyen.
77The type of offences to which you have pleaded guilty are all intrinsically serious and allow for the imposition of a custodial sentence in an appropriate case.
78You were well aware of the presence of the people on the roof of the vehicle and this was not the first occasion on that night that you had chosen to drive the vehicle in such circumstances. As such, your offending was far from being spontaneous in nature. Furthermore, you were aware that the people on the roof had been drinking alcohol and were in a precarious position, especially if you chose to drive erratically or in a manner that they could not anticipate. Yet that is exactly what you did. In my view, your offending falls in the mid part on the spectrum of seriousness for this type of offending and your moral culpability is to be properly viewed as significant, albeit not at the highest level.
79
The dangerousness involved in your driving was substantial and patent. To have driven in the manner that you did while alcohol affected people were on the roof was always going to end badly. The two victims were clearly in a very vulnerable position and simply unable to protect themselves. It is hardly surprising in such circumstances that they would be injured, seriously so in Ms Paisa’s case. What is surprising given the height from which they fell and the surface onto which they fell was that one or both of them were not even more seriously injured and that
Ms Latonga managed to avoid being injured altogether. And, it was indeed fortunate that Ms Sao managed to cling on and avoid falling. As bad as this avoidable tragedy was, it could have been even worse. The fact that it was not can be put down to good fortune rather than design.
80On the scale of seriousness for what can constitute serious injury, the injury sustained by Ms Paisa, as best it can be assessed, falls in the mid-range. I base that on the information provided in the prosecution opening, being astute not to engage in speculation as to any medium to long term consequences that she may experience.
81Whilst this court does not have the benefit of any victim impact statement, it is safe to assume that this incident and its aftermath must have been a traumatic experience for Ms Paisa and impacted adversely on her life.
82I consider the recklessly cause injury offence involving Ms Mapa to also fall in the mid-range of seriousness for that type of offence. In this context I refer to but will not repeat what I have already noted about the nature of the driving in which you engaged. I consider that the injury which she sustained was neither at the low nor the high end given the wide range of harm that can qualify as an injury. It clearly would have been a very upsetting experience for Ms Mapa also.
83Your conscious decision to drive away from the scene rather than fulfil your obligation as the driver to render what assistance you could was a rather callous act on your part. Whilst you may have felt a sense of panic initially, you also acted out of self-interest in leaving the scene as you did. It must, however, be noted, that there were already others present or in the vicinity, albeit that some of them may have been adversely affected by the alcohol that they had consumed. Whatever be the case, it is fortunate that there appears to have been no material delay in the emergency services being alerted to the victim’s plight or in them attending and assisting her as best they could at the scene.
84In terms of the related summary offence of failing to report the matter to police, I consider your offence to be neither a minor nor a grave example of that type of offence. Whilst it is clear that you failed to do what you were required to do immediately after this unfortunate incident occurred, you were however prepared to accompany Mr Piller when he later attended on the police and, when approached by police, to admit being the driver at the time at which the two victims were injured.
85This court must be careful when considering the final related summary offence. The fact that two victims were injured as a result of the driving must not be doubly counted so as to aggravate the seriousness of this offence. To do otherwise would risk doubly punishing you. It is, however, relevant to note that you were prepared to drive on multiple occasions that night. Your decision to drive on that final occasion on that night must therefore be seen in its fuller context and prevents it being said that your driving was simply a bad decision made in an unexpected and spontaneous situation.
86Finally, it is important to note that your offences are to be seen as aggravated by the fact that they occurred shortly after you had been sentenced by a court for other offences and in breach of that court imposed undertaking to be of good behaviour.
Relevant sentencing principles
87For offending of this type, general deterrence and denunciation loom large as sentencing considerations. They must be given emphasis so as to send the clearest of messages on behalf of the community that this type of criminal conduct is totally unacceptable and to be deplored, and so as to discourage other drivers from driving dangerously and from failing to fulfil their important obligations as drivers on our roads.
88Whilst youth remains a relevant consideration, it is to be given less weight in the context of this case on account of the need to emphasise some other sentencing principles and because many of the offenders who commit these type of offences are also young.
89Specific deterrence and protection of the community, whilst still relevant, do not assume quite the same significance as general deterrence and denunciation. On any view, your offending on this occasion was serious and the fact that you were prepared to engage in it so soon after being placed on a Bond for previous offences is a matter of real concern to this court. So, to some extent, the sentence that this court imposes must go some way towards deterring you personally from engaging in this type of criminal conduct in the future and some measure of protection to the community from you.
90Your age and prospects of rehabilitation remain relevant and important in the mix of considerations that this court must have regard to when determining the appropriate sentence. You were only 21 at the time of your offending. Even now, having just turned 24, you are still a relatively young man. It is important in that context to have regard to the parity principle as well as to the principle of totality. You have what I regard to be very good prospects and, so far as the law allows, any sentence imposed must try and facilitate rather than undermine those prospects.
91Ultimately, this court is required to punish you in a manner and to an extent that is just in all the circumstances. It can only do so after having carefully considered the circumstances of your offending, your own personal circumstances and the relevant sentencing principles that apply. I have endeavoured to do just that in your case, Mr Nguyen.
Sentencing submissions
92In her sentencing submissions, your counsel appropriately acknowledged that your offending was serious but urged the court not to impose a custodial sentence. After referring to the observations of the Court of Appeal in Boulton’s case, she submitted that all of the sentencing principles can be appropriately recognised and weighted through the imposition of a suitably lengthy and conditioned community correction order.
93For their part, the prosecution submitted that due to the seriousness of this offending and the need to highlight general deterrence and denunciation, nothing short of a custodial sentence was appropriate, in all the circumstances.
Analysis
94In determining the appropriate sentence in this case, I have had regard to the written and oral submissions of the parties and the sentencing statistics and other cases to which they referred.
95In the end, sentencing statistics are only ever of limited assistance and the sentencing outcomes in other cases are not determinative and certainly do not represent precedents.
96Each case must be considered by reference to its own facts and circumstances, both as to the offending and the offender. Individualised justice is what is called for in this as in every case.
97Whilst a community correction order can be appropriate even in some cases involving serious offending, it is not a rule of universal application.
98In the end, I have concluded that the nature and seriousness of the offending in this case is just too serious for a community correction order, even one combined with a term of imprisonment of up to 12 months. Rather, the circumstances of this case mandate the imposition of a custodial sentence in the form of a head sentence with a non-parole period. No other penalty is, in my view, open if this court is to fulfil its obligation to give appropriate recognition to the relevant sentencing considerations, especially those of general deterrence and denunciation, and to impose an adequate and just punishment for the offending.
99That said, I am acutely conscious of the fact that you will find the experience of having to serve a sentence in an adult gaol a very difficult one, for various reasons. I allow for the fact that having to serve such a sentence will itself go some way to achieving a level of personal deterrence in your case.
100Sadly, sending you to prison is a regrettable but necessary course that must be taken. However, the sentence to be imposed will be the minimum period necessary to achieve all sentencing objectives and will, so far as is possible, be designed to facilitate and promote your prospects, including by way of a relatively disparate non-parole period as compared to the head sentence. In the event that you are granted parole, it is to be hoped that the conditions of your release will ensure that you receive further psychological counselling and treatment aimed at addressing your mental health issues.
Sentence
101Mr Nguyen, after having carefully considered, balanced and weighed the relevant sentencing considerations in your case as best I can, I have decided to sentence you as follows.
102You will be convicted on each charge and sentenced to the following terms of imprisonment.
103On Charge 1, dangerous driving causing serious injury, 18 months.
104On Charge 2, recklessly cause injury, 12 months.
105On Charge 3, failing to render assistance after a motor vehicle accident, 18 months.
106On Summary Charge 6, fail to report to police if a person is injured, two months.
107On Summary Charge 7, learner driver drive vehicle without supervising driver, one month.
108The sentence of 18 months imposed on Charge 1 will be the base sentence.
109I order that three months of the sentence imposed on Charge 2, six months of the sentence imposed on Charge 3 and one month of the sentence imposed on Summary Charge 6 are to be served cumulatively on that base sentence and on each other.
110The total effective sentence is therefore 2 years and 4 months’ imprisonment.
111In respect of that head sentence, I fix a non-parole period of 12 months.
No pre-sentence detention
112For the sake of completeness and clarity, I indicate that in respect of the charges for which you have just been sentenced to imprisonment, there is no applicable period of pre-sentence detention.
Section 6AAA indication
113Pursuant to s 6AAA of the Sentencing Act 1991, I indicate that but for your plea of guilty to the charges for which you have received terms of imprisonment today, you would have been sentenced to a total effective sentence of 3 ½ years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 2 years.
Licencing orders
114In respect to any conviction imposed for a serious motor vehicle offence (of which the offence of dangerous driving causing serious injury is one), the court must cancel any driver's licences or permits held by the offender and disqualify that person from obtaining any other licences or permits for whatever period the court considers appropriate,[15] but must not specify a period of disqualification that is less than 18 months.[16]
[15] See ss 87P(d) and 89(1) of the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic).
[16] Ibid s 89(2)(a).
115I see no good reason in this case to exceed that period and so, in respect of Charge 1, dangerous driving causing serious injury, I order that any driver's licences or permits held by you Mr Nguyen are hereby cancelled and you are disqualified from obtaining any other licence or permit for a period of 18 months.
116The offence of failing to render assistance after a motor vehicle accident also attracts a mandatory licence disqualification order if a person suffers serious injury or is killed as a result of the accident.[17] For a first offence, as is the case here, the court must cancel any driver's licences or permits held by the offender and disqualify that person from obtaining any other licences or permits for a period of at least four years if a conviction is recorded.[18]
[17] See s 61(6) of the Road Safety Act 1986 (Vic).
[18] Ibid s 61(6)(a).
117Again, I see no good reason in this case to exceed that period and so, in respect of Charge 3, failing to render assistance after a motor vehicle accident, I order that any driver's licences or permits held by you Mr Nguyen are cancelled and you are disqualified from obtaining any other licence or permit for a period of four years.
118When considering sentence in this matter, I have borne in mind that such mandatory licensing orders are significant and punitive in their own right. In my view, the mandatory minimum periods of disqualification are more than adequate and to impose any lengthier period would tend to unfairly and adversely impact on your future prospects of rehabilitation.
119So, in respect of all periods of licence disqualification, I order that those periods are to commence today and are to run concurrently. In practical terms, the total period of licence disqualification is therefore four years, effective from today’s date.
Other matters
120Are there any matters that either counsel need to raise at this stage in relation to either the sentence or the sentencing reasons, starting with you, Ms Greener?
121MS GREENER: Your Honour, the only matter is custody management issues.
122HIS HONOUR: I was going to come to that in a moment, thank you.
123MS GREENER: Thank you, Your Honour. There's nothing else arising.
124MR D’MONTE: Nothing from the prosecution's perspective, Your Honour.
125HIS HONOUR: Thank you. Well Ms Greener, I had in mind listing as custody management issues on the documentation that will accompany your client when he is formally taken into custody shortly, the following matters, to which you can respond in whatever way you wish and to add any further matters if there are any.
126The fact that he will present as a vulnerable young prisoner, it being his first time in custody. That he has been diagnosed by a psychologist with depression and anxiety for which he is currently being medicated. And that he will need to be seen by a medical practitioner as soon as possible to ensure adequate medical/psychological treatment and medication are provided. Is there anything further?
127MS GREENER: I would only submit that it could be added in terms of his vulnerability based on his appearance, in addition to his mental health considerations.
128HIS HONOUR: Very well, I will consider adding that also, Ms Greener. If you have the specific details as to the medication that he is currently receiving, could you provide that to my associate when I leave the Bench and I will ensure that that also is included.
129MS GREENER: Yes, if I could ask, if I could get those instructions before Mr Nguyen out of court, Your Honour?
130HIS HONOUR: We'll do that now then, Ms Greener.
131MS GREENER: Thank you, Your Honour. I am sorry they are a bit too distressed at the moment to recall, so if the nurse could see him as a matter of priority, Your Honour?
132HIS HONOUR: All right.
133MS GREENER: I don't know if Your Honour's - I can see if I can get those details later on today.
134HIS HONOUR: All right. Well if you are able to, just provide them to my associate and we'll do what we can to ensure the authorities are alerted to that.
135MS GREENER: Yes, Your Honour.
136HIS HONOUR: In terms of its specifics, so it will certainly be conveyed that he is currently under medication.
137Now do you intend to speak to your client in the cells after I leave the Bench?
138MS GREENER: Yes.
139HIS HONOUR: All right, well in that event, Mr Nguyen can now formally be taken into custody, thank you.
140Yes. Could you now adjourn the court please, Mr Tipstaff.
- - -
0