Director of Public Prosecutions v Stafrace

[2023] VCC 1042

IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA Revised
Not Restricted
Suitable for Publication

AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

CR 22-01969

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

v

DEAN STAFRACE

---

JUDGE:	HIS HONOUR JUDGE MULLALY
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	9 May 2023, 12 May 2023, 15 May 2023 and16 June 2023
DATE OF SENTENCE:	16 June 2023
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Stafrace
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2023] VCC 1042

REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---

Subject:  CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence
Catchwords:  Plea of guilty – Conduct endangering persons
Legislation Cited:                Crimes Act 1958 (Vic); Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic)
Cases Cited:  Worboyes v The Queen [2021] VSCA 169; Chenhall v The

Queen [2021] VSCA 175.

Sentence:18 month Community Corrections Order and licence cancellation and disqualification for 6 months.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Director of Public Prosecutions	Ms C. Parkes	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr T. Danos	Danos Lawyers

HIS HONOUR:

1On 1 August 2020 you, your then partner Ms Cindy Raunik, and your long-time friend Mr Christopher Bayes decided to go for a joint motorcycle ride along the Mornington Peninsula. You and Mr Bayles had high powered Ducati motorcycles. You had recently purchased your Ducati. Ms Raunik was your pillion passenger.

2You met up and rode from St Kilda, heading along the Nepean Highway through to the shopping centre at Mornington, and from there onto the Esplanade, which travelled through Mt Martha and onwards, down the beachside townships of the Mornington Peninsula. That particular stretch of road curves as it follows the line of the coast.

3Just after 1:00pm, Mr Bayles failed to negotiate a curve to the right, and came off his motorbike. You were close behind and could not avoid his bike and you came down as well. The consequences of this were tragic, but you are not now charged with, and are not to be sentenced for, any offence arising from the fact that Mr Bayles died at the scene and Ms Raunik was seriously injured. You were originally facing these charges, but after case management in this court a single charge of conduct endangering serious injury was substituted and you pleaded guilty to that charge.

4The conduct that is said to have endangered serious injury was your driving at excessive speeds and with risky manoeuvres in passing other vehicles both on the correct and incorrect side. It was clear from the CCTV footage gathered by the investigators and the considerable number of observations by other motorists that you and Mr Bayles were travelling in convoy and taking risks to stay near to each other. I do not intend to outline all the observation. They are contained in the prosecution opening tendered on the plea. I will append that opening to these reasons for sentence. The police investigations secured footage from 10 separate CCTV sources along the route you drove from Mornington to Mt Martha. Using the images, and the time taken to move between two know points shown on the images, calculations were done of the speeds of your motorcycles.

5I have viewed all the CCTV videos. These speeds varied depending on road conditions and other vehicles. However, speeds well in excess of the speed limit and up near and over 100km were detected. In my view it is clear your driving was of a kind that created a real risk or an endangerment of causing serious injury. That offence is not dependant on there being a tragic outcome as there was in this case. However as some observers said, the nature of the driving was an accident waiting to happen.

6Christopher Bayles was, as his mother said in her victim impact statement, a wonderful caring man who generously helped her. His loss of life is keenly felt. It is keenly felt by you – as he was your friend. As I will outline, you have never been the same again.

7Your friend Ms Raunik suffered serious facture and spinal injuries causing the need for surgery and ongoing significant treatment. Ms Raunik wrote a letter to the court making it clear that you were a vibrant talented man who she valued in your romantic relationship. All that faltered as the grief of the loss of your friend and the police charges deeply affected all aspects of your life. The relationship did not last, but she hoped with this matter now at an end you may recover.

8Everyone who uses our roads has a responsibility not to endanger anyone by the way they drive. If you do, there must be consequences, even if what occurs is in the end a tragic accident.

9There must be in such circumstances proper measures of punishment and a penalty that deters others from risky behaviour on the road. Both the prosecution and your counsel agreed that a Community Corrections Order (‘CCO’) was a penalty that did meet the sentencing purposes of denunciation and deterrence as well as facilitating your rehabilitation. I have made it clear that such a sentence, is in my view, the appropriate and just sentence for this charge to which you pleaded guilty. I have mentioned that since this accident you have not been the same man.

10You are now 47. You have a prior history of driving offences, but I was told none related to motorcycle riding. You were an outstanding sportsman who moved into high level coaching in women’s junior soccer. You were a much respected teacher, although at the time of the accident you were contemplating a career change.

11What has occurred since the 1 August 2020 is that you have been unable to return to work. The TAC has been providing payments to you on the basis of your PSTD. It is clear to me that you have been significantly affected by the loss of your friend and the injuries to your then partner, and ultimately the loss of that relationship. You were in an earlier long term relationship and have two adult children. Maintaining the important relationship with your children has been difficult, but they remain very important to you. You have lost connection with many of your friends and now have a sense of isolation.

12The pressure of the prosecution of you, which for a long time alleged you caused your friend’s death, had been enormous and debilitating. You have had to survive on TAC payments, unemployment benefits and savings. Your life is much diminished and your emotions deeply affected. You have had long term treatment from a counsellor. It is hoped that consolidates and you can return to work and stability in the near future. As is often said, no one is the same after trauma of this kind and you are an example of that. These factors are powerfully persuasive in my conclusion that mercy should be shown to you in fixing a sentence.

13As I have made clear, a CCO is appropriate. Conditions such as unpaid work and help with your mental health are the obvious ones to achieve the purposes of punishment and facilitation of your rehabilitation simultaneously.

14The assessment of your mental health was particularly helpful. It was clear you have ongoing problems with your mental health. Your GP and private psychological counsellor are your best allies. It is strongly recommended by me, that your CCO condition of treatment for mental health problems be managed by them. The CCO assessor concluded you should be supervised. I was not sure that is needed in this case. It will not be ordered.

15The sentence that I have concluded is just and appropriate, is one that has taken into account the increased benefit that flows to those who plead guilty in these times, when the criminal justice system is still dealing with the very considerable difficulties caused by the pandemic.[1] Your plea is of importance in and of itself. You plainly wish none of this had happened. The augmented benefit for a plea because of the pandemic, means not just lesser time in prison for offenders, but that a sentence of a different kind becomes the just and appropriate sentence.

[1] Worboyes v The Queen [2021] VSCA 169; Chenhall v The Queen [2021] VSCA 175.

16The CCO I impose is of 18 months duration with program conditions of 120 hours of unpaid work over the 18 months and assessment and treatment for mental health.

17All hours spent on that program condition can count as part of unpaid work.

18In addition, your licence is cancelled and your disqualified for 6 months.

19Had you pleaded not guilty and been found guilty I would have imposed a sentence of 12 months and a 3 year CCO.[2]

[2] Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic), s 6AAA.