Director of Public Prosecutions v Tate
[2021] VCC 1194
•24 August 2021
Like
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA AT MELBOURNE CRIMINAL DIVISION | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
Case No. CR-21-00418
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| HARRISON TATE |
---
JUDGE: | HER HONOUR JUDGE CHAMBERS | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 26 July 2021 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 24 August 2021 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Tate | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2021] VCC 1194 | |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject:Criminal law - Sentence
Catchwords: Dangerous driving causing serious injury, reckless conduct endangering serious injury and nine related summary offences - guilty plea – youth – assessed for youth justice detention
Legislation Cited: Sentencing Act 1991
Cases Cited:Worboyes v. The Queen [2021] VSCA 169; Azzopardi v. The Queen (2011) 35 VR 43; DPP v. Neethling (2009) 22 VR 466,
Sentence: Total effective sentence of 22 months’ detention in a youth justice centre
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the DPP | Mr J. McCarthy (plea and sentence) | Office of Public Prosecutions Victoria |
| For the Accused | Mr H. Rattray (plea and sentence) | Balmer & Associates |
HER HONOUR:
1Harrison Tate, you have pleaded guilty to the following offences:
(a) Conduct endangering persons contrary to s23 of the Crimes Act 1958 (‘the Act’) the maximum penalty for which is five years’ imprisonment (Charge 1);
(b) Dangerous driving causing serious injury contrary to s319(1A) of the Act, the maximum penalty for which is five years’ imprisonment (Charge 2); and
(c)
Nine related summary offences committed between 11 October 2019 and
6 March 2020 (Charges 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 17. 18, 19 and 23).
2You were born in December 2000 and were 19 years old at the time of these offences. Having obtained your probationary licence in early 2019, you had received a number of infringements for driving-related offending. These included five speeding offences, committed between 12 July 2019 and 13 March 2020, including two offences of speeding between 15 and 24 kph above the applicable speed limit. Another offence related to disobeying a yellow traffic signal in December 2019. With the exception of these driving offences, you had no other prior criminal history.
3As at March 2020, you held a probationary (P2) drivers’ licence.
4Blake McGregor is the victim of the dangerous driving offence. He was born in May 2003 and was 16 years old at the time he was seriously injured on 14 March 2020. Blake was a close friend of your younger brother.
Circumstances of offending
5I turn now to the circumstances of your offending.
Charge 2 – Dangerous driving causing serious injury
6You owned an orange 2007 Ford Falcon with the registration ‘SICKBF’ that you had modified by cutting the rear stock suspensions for the vehicle to sit lower to the ground. You made these modifications to the car even though you have no qualifications in auto-mechanics.
7On 14 March 2020, a little after midnight, you were in your car with four other young people; your younger brother William, Noah Falcone (aged 15), Oscar McLean (aged 15) and the victim, Blake McGregor. Blake was sitting in the rear left passenger seat. You were driving northbound in High Street, Lalor.
8High Street, Lalor is a two-way undivided bitumen road with large trees planted along a median strip and concrete gutters on the outer edges. The road is flat, straight and was in fair, but not good condition, particularly where the north bound lane has areas of undulation. The speed limit governing this section of High Street, Lalor is 60 kph.
9It was dark at the time, but the weather was fine, the traffic was light and the road was dry.
10Just prior to the collision, you were driving at the rear of a line of four vehicles, travelling in convoy northbound in the right hand lane of High Street at approximately 60 kph. The drivers of the other vehicles were known to you. As the vehicles approached the intersection of High Street and Robert Street, you merged into the left hand lane and accelerated to overtake the convoy, increasing your speed to over 80 kph. As you approached the intersection, your car ‘bottomed out’, meaning the underside of your vehicle scrapped the road in an area where the road has soft spots and undulates. You then lost control of the vehicle.
11The car continued travelling north before colliding with the gutter on the north west corner of the intersection of High Street and Robert Street. Your car then continued along the gutter before you reacted by steering to the right, back onto High Street. You then over-corrected to the left, which caused the vehicle to swerve back to the left. You tried to regain control of the car before you skidded off High Street to the left, hitting a tree. On impact, the vehicle sustained significant damage to the passenger side where Blake was seated. As a result, he suffered serious injuries, to which I will return.
12Detective Leading Senior Constable Michael Hardiman of the Victorian Police Forensic Services Centre investigated the collision. He assessed that you were driving at approximately 84 kph at the time the vehicle commenced yawing and you swerved to the left.
13Fortunately, neither William Tate, Noah Falcone nor Oscar McLean were seriously injured and were able to get out of the car. Immediately after the collision, together with your brother, you pulled Blake out of the car and placed him on his side. You tried to assist with his breathing until the ambulance arrived. You were attentive to your responsibilities following the accident, which sadly, is not commonly the case.
Investigation and arrest
14You were interviewed by police on 14 March 2020. You were co-operative with police and made a number of admissions. You admitted the collision was your fault. You told police you were not sure what the speed limit was, but that you thought that it may be 70 or 80, but that you 'decided to do 80 anyway'. You told police that you wished you had not cut the suspension springs because the car is 'shit to ride' and that the steering felt worse on the bumpy road. You said that the car 'bottomed out' and that you assumed the bottom of your car 'hit the ground or something like that', and that you then lost control of the vehicle. You were fairly sure the other drivers in the convoy were doing 60 kph and had 'no idea' why you decided to drive at 80 kph.
15You told police that following the incident you were out of the car within 5 or 10 seconds, opening all the doors to make sure everyone was alright. When you came to Blake, you found him with his head down in the passenger seat, with blood coming from his mouth. You told police you cleared Blake’s throat and held his mouth open until the ambulance arrived. You acknowledged you were responsible for the younger passengers in your car, and were in shock that Blake was in hospital.
16You had not consumed any drugs or alcohol prior to the collision. It is the prosecution case that the vehicle ‘bottomed out’ due to combined effect of the modifications you made to the suspension of the Ford Falcon, the weight of the five occupants, and the speed at which you were driving given the particular conditions of the road as I have described.
Injuries to the victim
17Blake received emergency medical treatment from paramedics before being transported to the Royal Melbourne Hospital in a life-threatening condition. His catastrophic injuries were detailed in the Crown opening but in summary they include a collapsed lung, complex facial fractures requiring plates and screws to be attached to the left anterior maxillary and orbital wall fractures, diabetes insipidus, which is an imbalance of fluid in the body, ventilator associated pneumonia and traumatic anisocoria, where the pupils differ in size, leading to permanent loss of sight in the left eye.
18On admission to hospital, Blake’s treatment included respiration and intubation. A decision was made for him to undergo an urgent craniectomy on 14 March 2020 to relieve bleeding on the brain caused by multiple base skull fractures. A large dural and subdural haematoma were removed during the surgery. To address swelling on the brain, the opening of the bone flap was extended and left open until the swelling had reduced. On 4 April 2020, Blake underwent further surgery to reconstruct the bone flap and drain further fluid from the brain.
19Blake was discharged from the Royal Melbourne Hospital after 40 days and transferred to the rehabilitation unit at the Epworth Hospital on 23 April 2020. On admission he required 24-hour nursing care. Paralysis of his left side meant he required significant assistance to move from the bed to a sitting position as he could neither stand nor balance to sit.
20Blake remained in the rehabilitation unit until his discharge on 14 September 2020. Although his balance had improved on discharge, Blake continued to have significant physical and cognitive difficulties. In her report dated 5 October 2020, Dr Lisa Barrow, from the Victorian Forensic Paediatric Service, stated:
'…as at the 14th September, 2020 [the victim] continues to have difficulties including a mild hemiplegia, dysarthria (which is a speech production difficulties), poor attention, cognitive and behavioural difficulties, and likely loss of vision in his left eye on discharge from the Epworth. In addition to the immediate endangerment of his life it is clear from the available records that these injuries are also substantial and protracted'.
21Dr Barrow, having reviewed the speech pathology discharge report, also detailed the ongoing difficulties Blake experienced with speech and language. Specifically, he remained severely dysarthric, which is a speech disorder caused by muscle weakness, with low intelligibility and difficulty articulating words. Further, that his attention span was limited to 30 minutes. The report concludes that Blake will require ongoing speech therapy to improve intelligibility.
22Indeed, following his discharge, Blake has required ongoing physiotherapy, speech therapy, clinical and neuropsychological assessment and occupational therapy. In a letter dated 13 July 2021[1], Professor John Olver, Medical Director of the Epworth, states that Blake has permanent loss of vision in his left eye and has ongoing ptosis of the eyelids, that cannot be rectified by surgery. He has palsy affecting the left eye. He has difficulty sleeping and ongoing fluid imbalance. Professor Olver noted that from a cognitive viewpoint, Blake is unable to read and has a marked expressive dysphasia, an ongoing language disorder. Blake is dependent upon 24 hour care.
[1]Exhibit D
23As a result of the collision, Blake suffered horrific injuries. Following life-saving surgery, he faced a slow and prolonged period of rehabilitation and has worked hard towards his recovery. He has permanently lost sight in his left eye and his ongoing cognitive difficulties have profoundly impacted on the quality of his life, and more broadly, that of his family. This is borne out by the victim impact statement tendered in the plea hearing.
Victim impact
24On behalf of the family, Blake’s father, Robert McGregor, authored a victim impact statement dated 16 June 2021. Mr McGregor says that his son dreamed of becoming a carpenter and was working towards this goal, having completed his first year of an apprenticeship in Year 11 and was starting his second year at the time of the accident. He had also completed 70 hours learning to drive, and like all young people, was very excited about the prospect of being licensed to drive. His cognitive difficulties will now prevent him from becoming a carpenter or from ever driving. His father says this is devastating for Blake.
25The accident has turned the McGregors’ life upside down. The victim impact statement eloquently details the devastation of watching their critically injured son fight for his life and then, of learning that he will probably never overcome his injuries. At one point, the prognosis was that Blake may end up bed-ridden and living in a nursing home. Mr McGregor speaks with pride of watching Blake fight on a daily basis to improve; learning to sit, stand, eat and swallow and finally to walk. His parents stayed by his bedside for six months. However, due to the impact of COVID-19 many other family and friends were unable to visit him.
26Blake’s traumatic injuries meant that Mr McGregor had to give up work to care for him. For Blake’s parents, the stress of the situation has understandably taken its toll on their mental health. As a family, they have had to adjust their dreams and expectations for Blake and his future. They are scared and angry that his life will never be the same.
27This summary does not do justice to the victim impact statement. I have read the statement in its entirety and taken into account the enduring and profound impact of your offending on Blake and his family. The victim impact statement highlights the devastating consequences associated with driving in the manner you did that night. The impact on the victim is one of many factors I am required to consider and balance. I am conscious that this sentencing process will do little to repair the harm caused to Blake and the McGregor family as a result of your offending.
Charge 1 – Conduct endangering persons
28The police seized your mobile phone after the collision. When you were interviewed by the police on 14 March 2020, you provided them with your mobile phone pin number and Apple ID.
29Police viewed the contents of your mobile phone and located a number of videos of you committing other driving offences unrelated to the collision whilst driving or in control of your Ford Falcon.
30The videos were played in the course of your plea hearing.
31One video depicts the rear wheels of your car deliberately spinning at speed while a person’s hands are placed in close proximity to the wheel. This reckless conduct occurred on 4 March 2020 placing that person in danger of serious injury. This is the conduct that gives rise to Charge 1 – conduct endangering persons.
32On 18 September 2020 you attended the police station and nominated yourself as the driver of the car at the time the videos, including this one, were filmed.
Related summary offences
33You have also pleaded guilty to nine related summary offences. These offences were also detected when the police analysed the videos found on your mobile phone. These offences are as follows:
(a) Using a mobile phone while driving on three occasions on 11 October 2019 (related summary offence 10 – a rolled up charge);
(b) Driving in a manner causing a vehicle to lose traction on 7 December 2019 (related summary offence 11);
(c) Using a mobile phone while driving on 6 January 2020 , 24 February 2020, 29 February 2020, 3 March 2020, and 6 March 2020 (related summary offences 13, 17, 18, 19 and 23);
(d) Exceeding the speed limit while driving at a speed of 90 kph in a 60 kph zone on 6 January 2020 (related summary offence 14 - exceed speed limit by less than 35 kph); and
(e) Driving in a manner causing a vehicle to lose traction on 29 January 2020 (related summary offence 15).
34These offences all carry a maximum penalty of 10 penalty units, with the exception of summary charges 11 and 15 which carry a maximum penalty of 5 penalty units[2].
[2]A penalty unit at the time of the offence was $181.74
Personal circumstances
35I turn now to discuss your personal history and background.
36You are now aged 20 years. Yours was a childhood marked by estrangement from your mother and exposure to violence at the hands of your father. Your parents separated when you were seven years old. You never saw your mother again. You and your two older brothers and younger brother were raised by your father. Your two older brothers have autism spectrum disorder. You had a strained relationship with your father in your developing years. Your father was physically and emotionally abusive towards you. At the age of 15, you moved out of the family home as a result of being victim to severe physical violence, and moved in with an older man.
37At the age of 17 you returned to live with your father but you now live with your girlfriend of eighteen months and her mother, both of whom remain supportive of you.
38More recently, you attempted to make contact with your mother via social media, but you received no response. You are closest to your younger brother, one of the passengers in the vehicle on the night of 14 March 2020.
39You suffer from dyslexia which caused learning difficulties at school. Notwithstanding this, you completed Year 12, and commenced a carpentry apprenticeship after leaving secondary school.
40You were assessed for the purposes of the plea by Sandra Cokorilo, a psychologist on 23 June 2021. During that assessment, you told Ms Cokorilo that you had struggled since the collision and had withdrawn from social activities, focusing instead on the second year of your carpentry apprenticeship and working seven days a week. Your current employer, Property Transformers, is aware of your legal position and remains supportive of you.
41You have no history of problematic drug or alcohol use and prior to the collision had no difficulties with your mental health.
42As to the consequences of your offending, you told Ms Cokorilo that you had repeated flashbacks and nightmares about the accident, although these have now subsided. You described feelings of guilt, withdrawal and reduced motivation. You reported suicidal thoughts. You have a supportive and close social network, including an 18-month old relationship, although you have distanced yourself from the peers involved in the incident. As to the impact of the offending on the victim, you told Ms Cokorilo that, 'I have ruined his life and it has been haunting me'.
43In Ms Cokorilo’s opinion, your mental health deteriorated significantly after the collision. She has diagnosed you with a Post-traumatic Stress Disorder and a Major Depressive Disorder in response to the traumatic event. She says your significant psychological disturbance is evidenced by 'chronic suicidal ideation'. In Ms Cokorilo’s opinion you would benefit from psychological intervention, in particular, trauma-focused counselling to address the deterioration in your mental health since the collision.
44You told Ms Cokorilo that you now have a better understanding of the risks associated with poor driving and how it can escalate out of control, resulting in grave consequences. You told her you now drive a work ute only, and always remain under the speed limit. You no longer enjoy having passengers in the car when you drive. Ms Cokorilo assessed you as a low risk of further offending of this nature. She formed this view having been informed you have no prior criminal history, no history of drug or alcohol abuse, and a history of pro-social functioning with stable education, employment and interpersonal relationships.
Gravity of offending
45I turn now to make some comments about the nature and gravity of your offending.
46An assessment of the dangerousness of driving is informed firstly, by the extent of the risk created by the driving and secondly, the extent of potential harm should that risk materialise.
47Here, the risk was created by you driving at 20 kph per hour in excess of the speed limit in a car that had been modified by you and was not suited to the road conditions. You were speeding as you overtook on the inside lane. You were driving in a convoy of other vehicles and became frustrated when they continued driving at 60 kph. You took an unnecessary risk by speeding to overtake the convoy on the inside lane and in a modified car. This was more than a momentary lapse of judgment. It was an irresponsible and foolish risk, particularly where you were responsible for the safety of four other young men in the car. It is an aggravating factor that you were on a probationary licence at the time.
48I accept there was an absence of other aggravating features sometimes seen in cases such as this. You were not alcohol or drug affected at the time of your driving. The dangerous driving occurred over a relatively confined period of time. It was the fact the car had been modified, and was sitting low to the ground, combined with the speed at which you were travelling that caused you to lose control of the vehicle. There were no other aggravating features.
49However, the extent of potential harm caused by the risk posed by your driving tragically materialised with the significant and enduring injuries suffered by Blake. Your counsel rightly conceded that these factors combined placed your offence at the mid-range for offences of this kind.
50It is also relevant that you are to be sentenced for a further driving offence, where another person was placed at risk of harm by your conduct in spinning your tyres at speed when the (unidentified) person’s hand was placed proximate to the wheels. Concerningly, this risk-taking activity occurred on 4 March 2020, only 10 days prior to the collision. You are also being sentenced for nine other driving offences committed between 11 October 2019 and 6 March 2020, all of which were filmed, including driving on repeated occasions using a mobile phone and driving in a manner to cause loss of traction. In the lead up to the collision, you had shown a complete disregard for the road laws applicable to you as a probationary driver and of your obligations as a road user.
51I assess your moral culpability for your offending as significant, even accounting for your difficult background and youth.
52I now turn to other matters that are relevant in mitigation of your sentence.
Guilty plea and remorse
53First, and significantly, the charges resolved to a plea of guilty at an early stage. As a result of your plea, you spared witnesses from having to give any evidence in court. This is particularly significant in this case, given the young age of many of the witnesses. It would undoubtedly have been traumatic for the victim and other witnesses to have to re-live these events. Your plea also saved the court and the community the cost and time associated with a trial, which is of additional utility given the current delay in trials in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic. As the decision of the Court of Appeal in Worboyes[3] makes clear, a plea in these times carries significant weight in mitigation.
[3]Worboyes v The Queen [2021] VSCA 169 at [39]
54Through your plea you also acknowledge responsibility for the offending and express remorse. There are other tangible indications of remorse in your case. You immediately went to assist the other passengers, including Blake. When interviewed by police, you admitted the collision was your fault and that 'it hits you pretty hard' because you were responsible for the younger passengers. You told Ms Cokorilo that you were haunted by what had happened to Blake. I accept that your plea is accompanied by genuine remorse for your offending.
Youth
55Second, your youth has relevance to the sentence I impose. You were 19 years old at the time of the offence, and are now 20. There are well-settled legal principles that prioritise youth as a sentencing consideration, for a number of reasons[4]:
· young offenders are more immature, and may not fully appreciate the nature, seriousness and consequences of their criminal conduct;
· the increased potential for young offenders to be rehabilitated, which is in the public interest; and
· incarceration can impair, rather than enhance, a young offender’s prospects of rehabilitation.
[4]Azzopardi v The Queen (2011) 35 VR 43, 53-55 [34]-[36]
56Ms Cokorilo’s psychological report dated 8 July 2021 details the impact of youth on development and decision-making more broadly. In addition to the psychosocial immaturity associated with adolescence generally, Ms Cokorilo states[5]:
'… Mr Tate also has a pre-existing diagnosis of dyslexia which is associated with cognitive impulsivity inferred to arise from impaired frontal/prefrontal function. Such cognitive impulsivity would have additionally heightened his age-related biological and neurodevelopmentally normative impulsivity of an adolescent'.
[5]Report of Ms Cokorilo, dated 8 July 2021, page 6 at [55]
57Whilst I accept the principles enunciated in authorities such as R vMills[6] and Azzopardi have application to you, I must weigh these considerations against the seriousness of the offending and with the qualification that applies to these principles where the objectives of deterrence, denunciation and protection of the community are more prominent. Driving offences, particularly dangerous driving offences, are instances where the weight to be attached to youth is less significant, for the reasons given by the Court of Appeal in DPP v Neethling[7], there stating:
'It is precisely because of the tendency of young drivers to drive dangerously that general deterrence must be regarded as of great importance, and youth must be given relatively less weight. In the present case, the victims were themselves young people. The importance of general deterrence is to try and prevent the very kind of damage which occurred here'.
[6]R v Mills (1998) 4 VR 235
[7]DPP V Neethling (2009) 22 VR 466, page 477 at [55]
58I have sought to weigh these competing considerations, including by having you assessed as to your suitability for a youth justice centre order.
Burden of imprisonment
59In her assessment, Ms Cokorilo formed the opinion that a term of imprisonment will weigh more heavily upon you. Ms Cokorilo says you continue to manifest symptoms of PTSD and a major depressive disorder, and that these are likely to be exacerbated in a prison environment, particularly noting your depression and persistent suicidal ideation. I accept that these are burdens not borne by all other prisoners and warrant moderation in the sentence I impose[8].
[8]R vVerdins 16 VR 269, limb 5.
60The effect of confinement on your mental health will also be compounded by the limitations imposed in custodial settings to respond to COVID-19. These include significant limitations on face to face family visits, a burden that will be particularly difficult for you as a first time offender. I have taken this additional burden into account.
Previous good character and prospects of rehabilitation
61As stated, you have no prior criminal history with the exception of the speeding and driving infringements to which I have referred, and which are relatively minor.
62I accept there are a number of factors relevant to your prospects of rehabilitation. You have no history of drug or alcohol abuse or of driving under the influence, you have the support of your partner and her mother, and you have demonstrated a strong work ethic. A reference provided by your girlfriend’s mother, Ms McCann dated 23 July 2021 states that you have suffered low moods and feelings of guilt following the collision, but that you are otherwise polite, hard-working and dependable. She cites a recent example where you helped clear roads following a severe storm.
63In a reference dated 5 July 2021, your former employer, Mr Shaun Millis of SJM Building and Landscaping, attests to your strong work ethic and his observation that you threw yourself into work following the collision which he considered a mature and responsible way of building a positive future for yourself. From his perspective, it was a shock that someone who was so hard working and well-educated was responsible for this offending, which he says you will have to grow to live with.
64In general terms, I accept you are otherwise a person of good character. However, having regard to your driving conduct as demonstrated in the videos (which were the basis of the nine related summary offences), you could not be said to be of otherwise good character as a driver. For a young person, only recently licensed to drive, these summary offences reveal that you had a disconcerting propensity to flout the road rules. Charge 1 is an instance where, in doing so, you placed another person at appreciable risk.
65It is of further concern that subsequent to this offending, you have been charged with an infringement of speeding by less than 10 kph on 20 October 2020 and of failing to display ‘P' plates on 7 November 2020. This undermines, to some degree, the basis of Ms Cokorilo’s assessment that you pose a low level of risk of re-offending. Although I find your general prospects of rehabilitation are excellent, I am somewhat more guarded about your prospects of rehabilitation regarding your driving behaviour.
66Whilst I accept your driving priors are relatively minor, and further, that the ramifications of the collision have impressed on you the risks associated with your past driving behaviour, I consider the protection of the community and specific deterrence still have a role to play in sentencing you.
Other sentencing considerations
67I turn now to consider other relevant sentencing considerations. In cases such as this, general deterrence, just punishment, denunciation and the protection of the community are the primary purposes of sentencing. The sentence I impose must clearly signal to other young men the consequences that flow from driving dangerously.
68I have had regard to current sentencing practices, as best I am able to. I have also had regard to the various sentencing decisions to which the prosecution referred me[9]. Of course, every case differs but these have been a useful guide.
[9]Tokay v the Queen [2014] VSCA 172, Bausch v The Queen [2019] VSCA 235, Susan Lee v The Queen [2021] VSCA 156 and DPP v Amro [2017] VCC 1743
69On your behalf, Mr Rattray submitted a sentence of imprisonment was not necessarily warranted, and submitted alternatively, that you be assessed for a lengthy community correction order or a youth justice centre order. The objective seriousness of your dangerous driving where your moral culpability is not low, leads me to conclude that the relevant sentencing considerations could not be met by a community correction order.
70In her report, Ms Cokorilo assessed you as a young adult offender who would be susceptible to those with entrenched offending patterns in an adult custodial setting. She recommended that you be given access to appropriate educational and vocational support to further your rehabilitation and to reduce your exposure to adult offenders. Given these recommendations, and with the consent of the prosecution, your plea was adjourned to have you assessed by Youth Justice.
71The assessment report of Youth Justice dated 13 August 2021 reports that you engaged well in the assessment process and present with strong prospects of rehabilitation. The author, Ms Meyer, states that although you are in the upper range of young people eligible to be sentenced to youth detention, you are assessed as 'likely to be vulnerable and impressionable to more entrenched offenders within an adult prison setting'. Given that you have never been in custody, have limited driving-related offences and have expressed your willingness to engage in educational and therapeutic programs, Youth Justice assessed you would benefit from being placed in a youth justice centre rather than an adult prison.
72I have placed significant weight on the expert advice of Youth Justice. In combination with Ms Cokorilo’s opinion, I am satisfied the criteria for a youth justice centre order under s32 of the Sentencing Act 1991 are met, namely that you have reasonable prospects of rehabilitation and that, by reason of your age and level of maturity, you would be vulnerable to undesirable influences in an adult prison system. Removing you from the adult system will, in my view, enhance your prospects of rehabilitation by providing you with access to educational, vocational and importantly therapeutic support. Your rehabilitation, as a young person, benefits the entire community and enhances community safety. As part of that rehabilitation program, I also consider you would benefit from programs that address the specific risks identified by your driving offending.
73Balancing these various sentencing considerations, and having regard to the maximum penalties for the offences, I now sentence you as follows:
74Mr Tate, could you please stand.
75On Charge 1 – conduct endangering persons – you are convicted and sentenced to eight months’ detention in a youth justice centre.
76On Charge 2 – dangerous driving causing serious injury – you are convicted and sentenced to 20 months’ detention in a youth justice centre. This is the base sentence. It is appropriate that there be some cumulation of the sentence imposed on Charge 1 to reflect the separate instance of offending involving a separate victim. I order that two months of the sentence imposed on Charge 1 be served cumulatively upon the sentence imposed on Charge 2. This gives a total effective sentence of 22 months’ detention in a youth justice centre.
77For the summary offences involving use of a mobile phone whilst driving (Charges 10, 13, 17, 18, 19 and 23) you are convicted and fined an aggregate of $600. For the summary offences of causing a vehicle to lose traction (Charges 11 and 15) you are convicted and fined an aggregate of $400. For exceeding the speed limit, travelling at 90 kph per hour in a 60 kph zone (Charge 14) you are convicted and fined $300.
78The offence of dangerous driving causing serious injury is defined as a 'serious motor vehicle offence' and carries a mandatory licence disqualification of 18 months. I also consider that Charge 1 is relevant to my discretion in determining the period of disqualification. In the circumstances, on Charges 1 and 2, your licence is cancelled and you are disqualified from driving in the State of Victoria for a period of four years with effect from today’s date.
79Pursuant to s6AAA I indicate that had you not pleaded guilty, but been found guilty following trial, the sentence I would have otherwise imposed would have been three years’ detention in a youth justice centre.
80Please have a seat.
81Mr Rattray, are there any custody management matters you wanted me to note other than that this is your client's first time in custody and the matters raised in the psychological report?
82MR RATTRAY: No, Your Honour.
83HER HONOUR: Thank you. Are there any other matters counsel wish to raise with me?
84MR McCARTHY: No, Your Honour.
85MR RATTRAY: No, Your Honour, thank you.
86HER HONOUR: All right, thank you. Please adjourn the court.
- - -
10
1