Director of Public Prosecutions v Singh

[2024] VCC 2067

IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

 Revised
Not Restricted
 Suitable for Publication

Case No. CR-24-00067

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

v

AKASHDEEP SINGH

---

JUDGE:	HIS HONOUR JUDGE WRAIGHT
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	4 December 2024
DATE OF SENTENCE:	19 December 2024
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Singh
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2024] VCC 2067

REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---

Subject:CRIMINAL LAW – Sentencing.

Catchwords:              Plea of guilty – Failing to render assistance after a motor vehicle accident – Culpable driving causing death – No prior criminal history – Genuine remorse – Very good prospects of rehabilitation.

Legislation Cited:      Road Safety Act 1986 ss 61(1)(b), 61(3); Crimes Act 1958 s 318(1); Sentencing Act 1981 ss 5(2), 6AAA, 18, 87Q, 89, 89C(2); Road Safety Act 1986 s 61(6).

Cases Cited:DPP v Neethling (2009) 22 VR 466; Sabbatucci v The Queen [2021] VSCA 340; Guden v The Queen (2010) 28 VR 288; Tokay v The Queen [2014] VSCA 285; Sarikaya v The Queen [2015] VSAC 236; Hennessey v The King [2024] VSCA 2.

Sentence:                  Imprisonment for a period of 10 years with a non parole period of 6 years.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the DPP	Mr J Dickie	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr A Malik	Valos Black and Associates

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

1Akashdeep Singh, you have pleaded guilty to:

(a) one charge of failing to render assistance after a motor vehicle accident contrary to s 61(1)(b) and s 61(3) of the Road Safety Act 1986 which carries a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment (Charge 1); and

(b) one charge of culpable driving causing death contrary to s 318(1) of the Crimes Act 1958          which carries a maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment (Charge 2).

2You have no prior criminal history.

Circumstances of the offending

3A prosecution opening was tendered on the plea and may be summarised as follows:

4The victim in this matter is Caroline Buttigieg who was 53 years old at the time of the collision. The victim was married to Adam Stubenrauch and together they had two sons, Jarrod (37) and Bradley (28), and two young grandchildren.

5The victim operated an online holistic health, wellbeing and counselling service employing approximately 50-60 people. She also cared for her severely autistic brother with support via the NDIS. On the night she was killed, she was returning home from dropping her brother off at his residence. The victim drove a 2011 silver Volkswagen Golf with a soft top.

6You were 25 years old at the time of the offending. You arrived in Australia from India in 2019 on a student visa and were studying a diploma of automotive management at Training Australia First.

7You previously held a driver’s licence in India and obtained a Victorian driver’s licence. You were the registered owner of the 2012 SV6 VE Holden Commodore you drove on 26 May 2023.

8You lived with friends on Runlet Drive, Point Cook and worked as a driver for D & S Transport.

9At around 8:37pm on Friday 26 May 2023, you and your housemate Gurjant Singh (Gurjant) attended Dan Murphy’s in Point Cook, about a 5-minute drive away from your home. You purchased a bottle of 12-year-old Glenfiddich whisky and some grocery items before returning home.

10You drank the bottle of whisky together, sharing it with a third housemate. When you finished, you and Gurjant decided to leave to buy another bottle. Dan Murphy’s was closed, so you drove to a Bottle-O at Sanctuary Lakes, about a 5-10 minute drive away. It closed at 11:00pm.

11At 10:53pm you bought a bottle of the same whisky at the Bottle-O. When you departed, you drove along Point Cook Road, before turning left onto Dunnings Road.

12There was drizzle. The roads were still wet from earlier rain. Visibility was good as it was a well-lit area. The traffic was light to moderate.

13A short time after turning onto Dunnings Road, you filmed from your mobile phone.  You held the phone in your left hand as you drove with your right hand on the steering wheel. The phone’s camera pointed ahead through the front window. It captured the conditions, and the manner and speed in which you drove, over about one minute before the collision.

14About 130m from the collision intersection, the speedometer in your car recorded a speed of 175km/hr. You sped over about 1.8km along Dunnings Road.

15Dunnings Road has an approximate east/west orientation. It is straight and flat. In the west bound direction that you were driving, it had, immediately before the traffic lights, five lanes. This included two straight lanes, two right-hand turning lanes and one left-hand turning lane, which was separated by a traffic island. The speed limit was 60km/hr. This was indicated by speed signs, including one approaching the intersection with Boardwalk Boulevard.

16Boardwalk Boulevard runs approximately north/south. It was straight and flat. In the south bound lanes, in which the victim was driving, it had four lanes approaching the Dunnings Road intersection. This included two straight lanes, a right-hand turning lane and a left-hand turning lane, separated by a traffic island. The speed limit was 70km/hr.

17The video filmed by you showed you picking up speed as you drove straight along Dunnings Road. You overtook about six vehicles on your left, and passed another five cars on your right, at one point driving into a bus lane to undertake. As you approached the intersection of Boardwalk Boulevard, there were less vehicles on the road and your speed increased.

18You sped past one car on your left, before moving to the right-hand lane. Two cars were stopped ahead in the two left hand lanes before Boardwalk Boulevard. The traffic lights were red. They had been red for about 29 seconds before you drove into the intersection. The lights were clearly visible as you approached.

19You drove to the right, and into the right turning lane to overtake the two stopped cars. About 2.5 seconds prior to impact, you were driving between 135km/hr and 146km/hr. The Holden’s speedometer showed a speed of 141km/hr upon entering the intersection. There was moderate acceleration between 1.5 to 1 second before impact. There was breaking about one second before impact.

20The victim entered the intersection just as the lights for traffic in her direction turned amber. Your Commodore drove into the victim’s VW. Her car was severely impacted upon. The force was so strong, the VW’s engine was ejected. The victim’s car rolled, hit a tree and came to rest about 51m from the area of impact. Your Holden stopped at a collapsed traffic control signal on the west of the intersection.

21Gurjant Singh was on a video call in the front passenger seat. He recalls you driving ‘really fast’ when you got to Dunnings Road. He could not remember how many cars were on the road, but you were passing all of them. Gurjant said that when he noticed you were driving too fast, he told you to slow down. He could not remember when he said this. He does not remember how the collision occurred.

22Other drivers observed your lead-up driving and the collision:

(a)   Alexandra Tsoukas was driving west along Dunnings Road and had stopped at a red light in the left lane at the Palmers Road intersection. As the lights turned green and Ms Tsoukas drove forward, your car suddenly passed on her left side in the bus lane. Ms Tsoukas could not estimate the speed but described the car as going past her ‘like a flash’. It felt like her car rocked like when a truck passes. She watched you drive from the left lane to the right lane and pass other cars, changing lanes without indicating. Ms Tsoukas stopped at the lights at Lennon Boulevard, by which time you had moved forwards. After waiting about 30 seconds, she saw a big puff of smoke ahead.

(b)   Inder Preet, who was driving along Dunnings Road in the far-right lane and approaching the intersection before the intersection with Boardwalk Boulevard, saw your car suddenly come up behind him. He described it as travelling very fast. You shifted to the left lane quickly. Mr Preet described the car as being so close it nearly scratched his side mirror. He saw your car speed ahead and from about 100-200m away saw it enter the intersection and collide with the victim’s car.

(c)   Sagar Karawa was driving with his wife, their two children and his wife’s parents. His Outlander was stationery at the lights on Dunnings Road facing Boardwalk Boulevard. He was in the furthest left hand straight lane, with another car to his right. After stopping about 5-10 seconds waiting for the green light, he felt his car wobble as your car drove past at high speed. He remembers the victim’s car coming from the right along Boardwalk Boulevard. He then heard a loud bang.

(d)   Sikander Bajwa, who was driving his Toyota Camry, was stopped at the lights at Dunnings Road to the right of Mr Karawa’s car. He saw your car drive at very high speed past him and through the red light, hitting the victim’s car head on. He saw the victim’s car roll.

23The driving immediately beforehand and the collision itself were also captured on nearby CCTV cameras.

24Several people immediately stopped to assist and called 000. The prosecution opening details their movements and observations which I will not reproduce in these reasons. A number of people provided assistance to the victim until the ambulance arrived. One person saw you standing off the road, while another observed you to be unsteady and confused, and that your eyes were bloodshot.

25Within a few minutes, a fire rescue unit arrived. Police attended shortly afterwards and cordoned off the streets. An ambulance attended the scene.

26The precise movements of you after the collision are not clear. You did not appear to stay near your car for long. Given its very serious nature, you must have known or ought reasonably to have known that the collision had resulted in a person being killed or having suffered serious injury. In those circumstances, you failed to immediately render such assistance as you could as the driver of a motor vehicle involved in the collision.

27Gurjant Singh could not remember seeing you leaving the car.

28CCTV on a private house captured you walking east along nearby Miles Franklin Boulevard, about 300m away from the scene, at 11:13pm. At 11:17pm the same CCTV captured you walking west. You walked home. This is about 17 a minute walk or 1.9km away from the scene.

29Ms Tsoukas alerted a fireman to the fact you had left the scene. A couple who had earlier approached Ms Tsoukas to assist, later pointed out Gurjant, who Ms Tsoukas saw walk out of some bushes and cross Boardwalk Boulevard. She alerted police, who approached him.

30Gurjant gave his details to a police constable and said you were the driver. Gurjant called your brother and the police officer spoke with your brother. The officer then called your number, but there was no answer. Gurjant told police that you were at home.

31Police officers independently identified you as the registered owner of the Commodore. This confirmed your residential address.

32Fire Rescue officers showed police officers a mobile phone that was wedged between the dash and front windscreen in the right-hand driver’s corner of the Commodore. When retrieved, the screen showed rolling video of the immediate driving before the collision. The phone was seized. The purchased bottle of whisky was found in the Commodore.

33Police officers identified the victim. Officers later attended the home of Mr Stubenrauch and informed him of the collision and his wife’s very serious injuries.

34Investigators from the Major Collision Investigation Unit attended and commenced an investigation, making observations and recording the scene. Exhibits were seized. Statements were taken. CCTV was obtained.

35A collision reconstruction expert, who attended, retrieved the Commodore’s airbag control module. Data from the device was later analysed and a report provided. The Holden was mechanically inspected. No fault, failure or condition was found that could have caused or contributed to the collision.

36Just after 12:10am on Saturday 27 May 2023 police officers attended your house. About ten minutes later they entered the house. The police officers found you hiding under a doona in your bedroom. You were only wearing shorts. You were arrested. When asked if clothes on the floor had been worn by you at the time of the collision, you agreed.

37After you dressed, you were conveyed to Werribee Hospital. At 1.03am a blood sample was obtained from you.

38You were conveyed to Werribee Police Station. At about 1.47am an interview commenced. It was suspended for a forensic medical officer (FMO) to attend. At 4.40am you were assessed by an FMO, who found you fit to be interviewed. At 7.04am the interview was recommenced. It was suspended so you could obtain legal advice. From 7.38am a formal interview commenced. You exercised your right to make no comment.

39Photographs were taken of your minor injuries, which were consistent with you being in the car. A DNA sample was voluntarily provided. Your DNA was later compared positively with a DNA sample identified on the airbag on the driver’s side of the Commodore.

40You had a blood alcohol content (BAC) reading of 0.140 at 1.03am. At the time of the collision, about two hours and four minutes earlier, your BAC would have been between 0.161 and 0.181. This well exceeds the prescribed blood alcohol content level of 0.05. Such a level of alcohol in the system presented a significant appreciable risk.

41An opinion was obtained from a forensic physician, who opined that your aggressive driving with apparent non-adherence to traffic rules, as well as your apparent indifference to the seriously injured other driver, could be attributed to the impairing effects of alcohol. Having regard to the impact of the alcohol and your possible age-related inexperience, you were incapable of having proper control of your motor vehicle.

42Just after midnight on 27 May 2023, Ms Buttigieg was transported to the Royal Melbourne Hospital. She had multiple and extensive injuries. Following attempts to save her, it was apparent that she developed brain death due to her injuries. On 28 May she underwent one way extubation. She died later that day.

Nature and gravity of the offending

43The offence of culpable driving causing death is by its nature a very serious offence as it involves the death of a human being. The seriousness of the offence is also reflected in the maximum penalty imposed by Parliament being 20 years imprisonment. It is also a standard sentence offence, the standard sentence being 8 years imprisonment.

44The factors to be taken into account in determining the gravity of your offending are well settled.[1] In this instance in assessing the seriousness of your conduct I take into account all the circumstances including:

·that you were very intoxicated, with a blood alcohol content at the relevant time estimated to be between 0.161 and 0.181, making you incapable of having proper control of the car you were driving;

·your excessive speed which was at one point up to 175km/hr in a 60km/hr zone;

·that you held a phone in one of your hands as you drove in the manner described, deliberately filming your conduct;

·that at the time you entered the intersection you were travelling at 141km/hr;

·that you were weaving past a number of cars at times passing on the inside lane and bus lane;

·that your negligent driving extended for about one minute and 1.8km; and

·that you drove into the intersection against a red traffic light that had been red for some 29 seconds.

[1] DPP v Neethling (2009) 22 VR 466, [31]-[32].

45While you were very intoxicated as you drove, you nonetheless had the ability to weave in and out of lanes, passing other cars over a 1.8km distance. As you drove you held your phone in your left hand filming your driving, presumably to make a record of your deliberate conduct that you would later view or share. In relation to the filming, you stated to your psychologist that you were making a social media recording and that ‘I could not get any attention in the real world, so [I] got attention in the social media world’.

46Your conduct was entirely self focused and you had absolutely no regard to the safety of other road users, or your passenger. I am also satisfied that you were well aware of the risks you were taking. In my view, in all the circumstances your offending represents a serious example of culpable driving and your moral culpability is high.

47Turning to Charge 1, given the force of the impact I am satisfied that immediately following the collision, you understood that a person in the vehicle you collided with was likely to have been seriously injured. While your exact movements are not certain in the moments following the collision, it is clear from witnesses that you did not immediately leave the scene but remained for long enough to observe that others were attending to the victim. Thus, once you knew the seriousness of the situation you then made the conscious decision to leave the scene. In those circumstances in my view your conduct was cowardly and inhumane.

Victim impact statements

48Three eloquent victim impact statements were tendered and read out on the plea. I have taken the contents of these victim impact statements into account. 

49The clear and consistent theme in all three victim impact statements is that Caroline Buttigieg was a much loved and respected mother and wife. She was the matriarch of her family, a constant source of advice and support.

50Ms Buttigieg’s husband, Adam Stubenrauch speaks of the enormous loss as a result of losing his life partner of over 30 years, and it is clear from Mr Stubenrauch’s statement that he shared a full life with his wife who he described as the ‘life and centre of the party’. He speaks of the extreme anxiety he has experienced as a result of his wife’s death, impacting his ability to drive, think straight, concentrate and remember things. He has not been able to eat, sleep or return to work, creating a significant financial burden for his family.  

51Ms Buttigieg’s two sons, Bradley and Jarrod Stubenrauch also provided statements which detail the emotional trauma and grief they have both experienced since the accident. Bradley explains that the sudden and violent nature of his mums passing has left him struggling with profound grief and anger, affecting his sense of security and outlook on life. Losing his mother so unexpectedly has left him grappling with an intense feeling of loneliness, permeating every aspect of his life. He further details the financial hardship the family has been facing since his mother’s absence which, combined with the emotional toll of her loss, has made it difficult for the family to adjust to life without Ms Buttigieg. Jarrod speaks of the distress he feels knowing that his daughter’s will not have the chance to grow up with their grandmother.

52I wish to direct some comments to the family of Ms Buttigieg.

53There is nothing this Court can say or do that will bring back Caroline Buttigieg, or address your unmeasurable grief and pain. The sentence I must impose can in no way be a measure of the worth of the life of Ms Buttigieg. Rather, the sentence I must impose is a reflection of a large number of factors which judges are required by law to take into account, only one of which is the impact on victims.

Personal circumstances

54I turn now to your background and personal circumstances.

55You are now 26 years old, you were 25 at the time of the offending. You were born and raised in the Punjab region of India. Your father worked as a wholesaler whilst your mother remained at home. You are your parent’s only child.

56You report a dysfunctional childhood, one in which your father was dependant on alcohol and heroin and was verbally and physically abusive to you and your mother. You state that he would hit you routinely with whatever item was close by. Your mother was also verbally abusive but to a lesser degree than your father. You report that your parents regularly ‘fought all the night’ causing you to seek refuge behind the couch for safety. Your mother attempted to take her own life by drowning and suffered a hearing deficit as a result.

57You experienced a lonely and socially outcasted childhood where you were regularly the subject of bullying and isolation at school, some of which you attribute to you being Sikh. Your family were further ridiculed by your neighbours.

58You attended school until year 12 however you were a poor student achieving below average marks and incurring many absences.

59You left home at age 21 and immigrated to Australia on a student visa. You were reluctant to come to Australia however, your parents had the desire for you to provide for them financially. Following your arrival in Australia, you completed various certificates and diplomas in automotive mechanics whilst also working as a cleaner, Uber Eats driver and a truck driver. Throughout this period you were expected to financially support your parents who would constantly harass you to earn more so that you could provide them with more money.

60You have had two significant intimate relationships and were engaged to your last partner however, that relationship ended as a result of your incarceration.

61Turning now to your alcohol use. You report that you started drinking alcohol when you were about 17 years of age which developed into patterns of binge drinking where you would consume up to one litre of whiskey on Friday and Saturday nights. You attribute this pattern of drinking to your traumatic childhood, aiming to self-medicate in an attempt to ‘feel better about yourself’ and forget about the verbal and physical abuse inflicted by your parents.  Further, you report difficulties with anger stating that prior to your incarceration ‘you were angry all the time’. You would attempt to numb these feelings through alcohol.

62You deny the use of any illicit substances which you attribute to your father’s heroin dependence.

63A report prepared by psychologist Christine Kennedy, dated 26 August 2024 was tendered on the plea which I have taken into account. Ms Kennedy opines that throughout your consultation with her you presented as a socially detached individual with a fragile ego who ‘attempts to present himself in the most favourable light.’ Your avoidant personality type means you are likely to be socially withdrawn and anxious, manifesting in a hypersensitivity to potential rejection or humiliation by others. You yearn for closeness and acceptance whilst fearing any rejection or humiliation in relationships with others.

64Ms Kennedy further outlines that these personality traits mean you are likely to be caught in a vicious cycle of low self-esteem, fear of rejection and hypersensitivity to disapproval. Consequently, you are likely to rely extensively on fantasy to gratify your needs for contact and discharge of anger. You are then likely to engage in self-destructive and impulsive behaviour such as excessive alcohol or drug use.

65You have experienced emotional distress since your offending and have been diagnosed with persistent depressive disorder and anxious distress as a result.

66A bundle of vocational and rehabilitative certificates were tendered on the plea demonstrating your commitment to change and your efforts to address your alcohol issues.

Sentencing considerations

67Mr Malik who appeared on your behalf pointed to a number of matters to be taken into account in mitigation.

68First I take into account your plea of guilty. The matter proceeded to this court by way of straight hand up brief and no witnesses were cross examined. Your plea has advanced the course of justice and avoided the time and expense of a criminal trial.

69Over and above your plea of guilty it was submitted that you have expressed genuine remorse. The source of that submission is from comments that you expressed to Ms Kennedy and the letter you wrote to the court. In your letter you simply express to the family of the victim that that you are unable to describe in words how sorry you are. While letters such as yours are often met by the courts with some caution, when considered together with the observations of Ms Kennedy, in my view your expressions of remorse are genuine. I note that that prosecution also accept that you have expressed a degree of remorse.

70It was submitted that your exposure to family violence when young and the social isolation from your peers, led to you using alcohol as a form of self medication.[2] It was further submitted that Bugmy principles are therefore enlivened. Mr Dickie who appeared on behalf of the Director of Public Prosecutions submitted that there is insufficient evidence to draw a nexus between your hardships and childhood experiences to your offending and thus, no basis upon which to moderate your moral culpability. In Sabbatucci v The Queen,[3] the Court of Appeal noted:

Whether, and to what extent, social disadvantage warrants a reduction in moral culpability in a particular case falls to be assessed by reference to the nature and circumstances of the offence, the nature and severity of the disadvantage suffered and whether the effects of the disadvantage can be seen to be in any way explanatory of the offending.

[2] Defence submissions, [18].

[3] [2021] VSCA 340, [6].

71Ms Kennedy describes you as being in a ‘vicious cycle of low self esteem’ and that you are ‘likely to engage in self-destructive and impulsive behaviour such as excessive alcohol or drug use.’ In this instance it was submitted that immediately prior to the offending you were angry as a result of your parents demanding money together with rejection from your girlfriend when she did not return your calls.

72While I do have regard to your background including your childhood experiences, giving it weight in the sentencing discretion, having considered the evidence, in my view there is insufficient evidence to enable Bugmy principles to be enlivened in this instance.

73Turning to your immigration status. You came to Australia on a student visa which has now expired. You are therefore currently an unlawful non-citizen. Thus if you are sentenced to a period of imprisonment with a parole period, it is likely that you will be held immigration detention even if granted parole. In these circumstances, given the uncertainty of your status, it was submitted that the burden of imprisonment will be greater upon you compared to that of an ordinary prisoner.[4] It was also submitted that you will be isolated from your family who remain in India. I accept those submissions. The prosecution also accepted that some weight is able to be given to the burden you will face in custody due to the uncertainty of your immigration status.

[4] Guden v The Queen (2010) 28 VR 288, [27].

74Turning to your prosects of rehabilitation. You come before the court with no prior criminal history and, having recognised the issues you need to address, you have engaged in rehabilitative and vocational courses whilst in custody. I also take into account that you are a relatively young man and despite your very serious offending, your rehabilitation must still carry weight in the sentencing calculus. In the circumstances I assess your prospects of rehabilitation as very good.

Other sentencing considerations

75General deterrence and denunciation of your conduct are prominent sentencing considerations in relation to both charges. In relation to Charge 2, others must understand that drink driving, speeding and taking significant risks as you did, ultimately causing the death of an innocent person on the road, will result in severe consequences. As to Charge 1, I note the comments of Santamaria JA in Tokay v The Queen:[5]

The maximum (sentence) is now ten years. That maximum penalty reflects the serious community concern and disapproval of the failure to stop and render assistance. Several judges of the Court have described the reprehensible nature of the offence, particularly in circumstances where the victim has suffered serious injury, and have referred to the fact that offenders must expect a substantial term of imprisonment.

[5] [2014] VSCA 285, [26]. See also Sarikaya v The Queen [2015] VSAC 236, [33]-[34] (Maxwell P & Kaye JA).

76As you have no prior convictions and I have assessed your prospects of rehabilitation as very good, in my view specific deterrence need only carry minimal weight in the sentencing discretion.

77In addition to the matters that I am required to take into account under s 5(2) of the Sentencing Act 1991 (‘Sentencing Act’), I must also take into account that Charge 2 is a standard sentence offence. The standard sentence for culpable driving causing death is 8 years imprisonment.

78Having identified and considered the relevant factors in assessing the appropriate sentence as part of the instinctive synthesis, including the maximum penalty, the standard sentence and the serious nature of your offending, in this instance I have formed the view that the sentence I will impose on Charge 2 falls above the prescribed standard sentence.

79Turning to current sentencing practices, recently the Court of Appeal in Hennessey v The King[6] reviewed a number of Court of Appeal and County Court sentences. While emphasising the variation in circumstances of each case, the Court noted that the range of sentences was narrow. The highest being 9 years 6 months and the lowest being 8 years. The median sentence was 9 years, the mean was 9 years and 2 months; the most common sentence being 9 years. While I have taken these cases and observations into account, as the Court noted, comparable cases may illustrate the possible range but cannot define it.[7]

[6] [2024] VSCA 2, [62]-[66] (Emerton P & Whelan JA).

[7] Ibid, [87].

Sentence

80Mr Singh, would you please stand.

81Akashdeep Singh, on Charge 1 failing to render assistance after a motor vehicle collision, you are convicted and sentenced to 2 years and 3 months imprisonment. On Charge 2, culpable driving causing death, you are convicted and sentenced to 9 years and 6 months imprisonment. I direct that 6 months of the sentence imposed on Charge 1 be cumulative on the sentence imposed on Charge 2, making for a total effective sentence of 10 years imprisonment.

82I direct that you serve 6 years before becoming eligible for parole.

83Pursuant to s 18 of the Sentencing Act, I declare that 572 days be reckoned as the period of imprisonment already served under the sentence I have imposed. That does not include today.

84Pursuant to s 6AAA of the Sentencing Act, if not for your plea of guilty, I would have sentenced you to a period of imprisonment of 13 years imprisonment with a non parole period of 9 years.

85In relation Charge 2, pursuant to s 89 of the Sentencing Act any licence you hold is cancelled and you are disqualified from obtaining a further licence for a period of 4 years from today. As to Charge 1, pursuant to s 61(6) of the Road Safety Act 1986, I make the same order cancelling and disqualifying your licence for a period of 4 years. The two disqualification orders will run concurrently.

86Pursuant to s 89C(2) of the Sentencing Act I find that Charge 2 was committed while you were under the influence of alcohol and I direct that this finding be provided to the Secretary to the Department of Transport pursuant to s 87Q.