Director of Public Prosecutions v Thorpe-Smith
[2022] VCC 2277
•16 December 2022
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
AT MELBOURNE
KOORI COURT DIVISION
CR-21-00763
CR-22-00931
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| LACHLAN THORPE-SMITH |
---
JUDGE: | HIS HONOUR JUDGE JOHNS |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne |
DATE OF HEARING: | 28 November 2022 |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 16 December 2022 |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Thorpe-Smith |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2022] VCC 2277 |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject: Criminal Law Sentence
Catchwords: Aggravated burglary – Causing injury intentionally – Dangerous driving causing death – Failing to render assistance after a motor vehicle accident – Theft – Unlawful assault – Unlicensed driving – Koori Court Jurisdiction – Application of Bugmy Principles
Legislation Cited: Sentencing Act 1991
Cases Cited: R v Mills [1998] 4 VR 235; Azzopardi v The Queen (2011) 35 VR 43; Bugmy v The Queen 249 CLR 571; R v McKee [2003] VSCA 16; DPP v Brooks [2008] VSCA 253.
Sentence: Total effective sentence of 6 years’ and 8 months’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 4 years.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Director of Public Prosecutions | Mr D. Brown | Office of Public Prosecutions |
For the Accused | Mr A. Jackson | Michael J. Gleeson & Associates |
HIS HONOUR:
1Lachlan Thorpe-Smith, you have pleaded guilty in the Koori Court to two indictments. On indictment No. L11573443 you pleaded guilty to one charge of aggravated burglary and one charge of causing injury intentionally. On indictment No. M11570431 you pleaded guilty to one charge of dangerous driving causing death, one charge of failing to render assistance after a motor vehicle accident, and one charge of theft.
2You have also pleaded guilty to the uplifted summary offence of unlicensed driving.
3The maximum penalty for aggravated burglary is 25 years’ imprisonment. For causing injury intentionally – 10 years’ imprisonment. For dangerous driving causing death, failing to render assistance after a motor vehicle accident, and theft – the maximum penalty is 10 years’ imprisonment each. For the summary offence of unlicensed driving, the maximum penalty is 6 months’ imprisonment or 60 penalty units.
4You have admitted relevant prior convictions, particularly in relation to dangerous and reckless conduct involving motor vehicles.
5The circumstances of your offending are set out in the summary of prosecution openings for plea, which were Exhibit A and Exhibit B on the plea and form part of these reasons for sentence.
Circumstances of Offending
Indictment No L11573443 – June 2020 offending
6At approximately 5.30pm on 9 June 2020, you attended the house of your victim in Newcastle Street, Preston.
7You began tapping loudly on the front door of the unit. Your victim moved to the front door and opened the wooden door whilst the security screen door remained closed. Your victim could not identify you though the security screen door, so he opened it to get a better view.
8Upon opening the screen door, your victim recognised you as a friend of a female neighbour. He had never formally met you but had said hello to you in passing, and knew you only as “Locky”.
9You were standing directly in front of your victim holding a red handled screwdriver in your right hand at roughly head height, pointed towards him.
10Without warning, you sprung towards your victim through the open doorway and forced your way into the unit. You then struck your victim several times causing lacerations to his forehead, cheek and neck region. (Charge 1 – aggravated burglary).
11You pushed him further inside the premises and continued to assault him. He put his arms up to protect himself before falling backwards onto a bench press in his lounge room.
12Whilst lying back on the bench press, your victim sustained further cuts to his body, mainly the chest region, as you continued to strike him with the screwdriver.
13While you were fighting with him you kept saying, “You’re dead you cunt”.
14Your victim managed to push you away from him and get up off the bench press. You then dropped the screwdriver and grabbed him around the chest region. You shoved him hard, pushing him into the kitchen area and up against the stove top and oven.
15You then said to your victim, “Have you had enough? Have you had enough?” and he replied, “Just get your stuff and fuck off”.
16You then put your shoes back on, which had come off during the assault, and left the premises taking the screwdriver with you. Your victim then called 000 to report the incident to the police.
17Following the assault on your victim the following injuries were photographed:
i.A long scratch abrasion to his right cheek with a further shorter linear abrasion above that, and at least two other small abrasions;
ii.A small sub-conjunctival haemorrhage of his right eye;
iii.A scratch abrasion of his right forehead in a horizontal orientation;
iv.A long scratch abrasion to the right side of the back of his neck;
v.An area of injury at his hairline on the left side of his forehead;
vi.A bleeding injury to his left forehead;
vii.Two small side by side abrasions at the front of his neck;
viii.Three linear abrasions, two across the front of his chest crossing the apex, and a smaller aspect of his left eye beside his mouth as far as his chin;
ix.An injury on the right palm of his hand.
Indictment No M11570431 – July 2021 offending
18On 20 July 2021, you and the victim of your dangerous driving, William Hexter, spent some time together in the Melbourne CBD prior to driving to Ballarat and back. You were driving a stolen 2007 Subaru Tribeca Wagon and at the time you did not hold a license to drive a motor vehicle (Charge 1 – theft and Related summary Charge 6 – unlicensed driving).
19On your return to Melbourne you drove to Ashwood where you and your victim met up with four friends. Your friends were in possession of a dark grey Mazda CX5 which had stolen registration plates attached to it.
20At 12.03am on 21 July, both the Subaru Tribeca and the Mazda CX5 were captured on CCTV footage entering the underground carpark of the Glen Shopping Centre in Glen Waverly. Both vehicles were then driven to the Burwood One Shopping Centre. After leaving that shopping centre the two vehicles separated.
21At about 1.17 am that night you were driving the Subaru wagon along the Burwood Highway in Burwood. It was raining and the roadway was wet.
22The Subaru wagon you were driving left the roadway just east of Renown Street. It first struck a power pole on the nature strip on the south-eastern corner of the Burwood Highway and Renown Street. It then struck the concrete gutter of the side of the over side of the intersection and two street signs before coming to a rest against a second power pole which was 48.75 metres from the first tyre mark located at the scene.
23After hitting the first power pole, the Subaru wagon spun in an anti-clockwise direction before the passenger side of the wagon came to a rest against the second power pole. When the Subaru wagon came to rest it was facing in an easterly direction. Your victim William Hexter who was in the front passenger seat tragically, passed away at the scene from injuries he sustained in the collision.
24You were initially trapped in the driver’s seat. After some neighbours came out to investigate the loud noise of the collision you were able to get out of the Subaru with their assistance. The neighbours called 000. After getting out of the car, you then hid in the garden of a nearby property before you fled the scene before the police and ambulance arrived. You left the scene without rendering any assistance to Billy Hexter (Charge 2 – Failing to render assistance after a motor vehicle accident).
25Your blood was found on the airbag of the of the stolen Subaru. When analysed, your blood was found to contain both methylamphetamine and amphetamine although the concentration of those drugs in the blood could not be determined.
26A collision reconstructionist attended at the scene on the night of 21 July 2021. From her examination she concluded that the Subaru was travelling at a minimum speed of between 79km/h and 85km/h when it first left the roadway.
27The investigator was unable to determine why the Subaru wagon left the roadway.
28Four days after the accident, on 25 July 2021 you attended at the Northcote Police Station with your father and informed the police that you were the driver of the stolen Subaru. You appeared to be injured and an ambulance was called to assess the injuries you had suffered in the collision.
29You were taken to the Royal Melbourne Hospital where you spent three days under police guard. You were treated for a large left pneumothorax, a fractured rib, and subtle compression fractures of the T11 and L1 vertebral bodies.
Victim Impact Statements
30A victim impact statement was read to the Court by William ‘Billy’ Hexter’s father.
31Everyone in the Court was moved by the expression of grief and trauma delivered by Billy’s father.
32The feeling of grief and loss is unimaginable.
33Your dangerous driving has taken a young life, full of promise. A much loved young man. Words cannot convey the impact of the loss, and the longing for things to be different.
34A Victim Impact Statement was also filed with the Court from the victim of the attack the subject of the first indictment.
35The impacts upon him have been severe and I take them into account.
Objective Gravity of Offending
36The offences on both indictments before me are very serious. The serious nature of the offending is reflected in the maximum penalties – 25 years’ imprisonment for aggravated burglary, and 10 years’ imprisonment for causing injury intentionally, dangerous driving causing death, failing to render assistance after a motor vehicle accident, and theft.
37In relation to the offences of aggravated burglary and intentionally causing injury, it was a terrifying experience for your victim. He knew you were a friend of his neighbour but he had never met you. He feared for his life.
38You went to your victim’s home with the intent to assault him and you forced your way into his home after he had opened his door to you. You attacked him with a screwdriver you had brought with you causing multiple injuries to his head, neck, eye and hands.
39The charges on the second indictment are likewise serious examples of serious offences. You were driving at an excessive speed in wet conditions at a time when you did not hold a license – you simply should not have been driving at all.
40You also had methylamphetamine and amphetamine in your system. Although the concentration could not be determined, the presence of drugs in your bloodstream at the time of the collision is relevant to my assessment of the seriousness of your offending.
41Driving in such dangerous circumstances carries the risk of a catastrophic event, which of course is what occurred. Your actions that night caused the death of William Hexter, a 15-year-old child.
42By driving so dangerously you cut your victim’s life tragically short. Your victim’s father has been completely shattered by the loss of his son, expressing his ongoing anguish in his visceral statement to this Court.
43It is concerning that your criminal history contains numerous driving offences, including several convictions for offending which involved dangerous driving. You are a danger to the community when behind the wheel of a car. You are a danger to the community when intoxicated.
Personal Circumstances
44Your personal circumstances are tragic. Your early life, infancy, childhood, and teenage years were traumatic, disrupted, and desperately sad.
45You were born in Melbourne, the only child of parents who separated when you were four. You were exposed to family violence throughout those years.
46Your late mother suffered mental illness, schizophrenia and bi-polar disorder. You were in her care until age 7 when you were placed into residential care due to her illness.
47You had weekly contact with your mother until she passed away when you were 16. You have described your relationship with your mother as confused. After the age of 7 you mainly resided in residential care save for some short periods living with your father – never more than 6 months.
48You remained in residential care until the age of 17 when you moved into your late mother’s home. You only remained there for a year as memories and grief were emotionally draining.
49You have been homeless ever since – couch-surfing with friends, an uncle and a cousin. You lived on the streets for two years when friends and family were unable to accommodate you.
50You were residing with a maternal uncle for three months prior to being remanded into custody.
51You had difficulty throughout a disrupted education – not surprisingly given the instability in your life. You were diagnosed as having ADHD and a learning disability. You left the education system before completing year 8.
52You have never worked and you attribute this to what you describe as your learning disability. You told psychologist Sandra Cokorilo that you “can’t do basic stuff’ in an employment setting.
53You have two children, aged 5 and 1 arising out of a 6-year relationship which broke down in 2021 due to your offending. The breakdown of this relationship has caused you distress.
54You reported to Ms Cokorilo chronic suicidal ideation from age 15, and estimated more than 10 suicide attempts between the ages of 15 and 19. You self-harmed at 13 years of age.
55Given the instability and lack of support throughout your early life, and your exposure to negative influences, it is not surprising that you engaged in illicit substance abuse from a tender age.
56You told Ms Cokorilo that you drank a bottle of spirits a day from the age of 15.
57You began smoking cannabis at age 8 and have described daily use of 7 grams from the age of 11 up to your remand.
58You used methamphetamine, including intravenously, from age 13.
59You used heroin regularly from 15 years of age. You abused benzodiazepine medication from 13 years of age.
60You have had an extensive criminal history and on your own assessment to Ms Cokorilo you have been in and out custody from the age of 13. You have self-described your offending history as mostly relating to theft and driving offences attributing your behaviour to ‘built up anger.’
Intellectual Functioning- Two Reports of Sandra Cokorilo
61In November 2022, Ms Sandra Cokorilo assessed you as falling within the extremely low range of working memory and in the borderline range of verbal comprehension.
62Ms Cokorilo opined that given your history and the results of the psychometric testing you likely suffer from an intellectual disability. At paragraph [84]:
‘His presentation is further complicated by the presence of untreated ADHD and his impaired intellectual capacity. He has reported previous diagnoses of ADHD and a learning disability but was unable to provide specific detail regarding the latter. The subsets of WAIS-IV administered in the current assessment revealed extremely low range of working memory and borderline range of verbal comprehension. In combination with his low adaptive abilities, evidenced by low educational attainment, homelessness, lifelong history of unemployment, low coping resources and lack of meaningful social connections, and poor ability for self-direction, it seems likely that he suffers from an intellectual disability.’
63Alongside your impaired intellectual functioning, Ms Cokorilo also noted that you presented with a range of psychological disturbances. At [82]:
‘Mr Thorpe-Smith reported previous diagnoses of depression and anxiety and currently meet the diagnostic criteria for Persistent Depressive Disorder (PDD) with intermittent and current Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) and Generalised Anxiety Disorder (GAD). He clearly suffers from significant psychological disturbance evidenced by chronic suicide ideation, attempt and self-harming behaviours since adolescence.’
64At [85] Ms Cokorillo opined that even if you are not confirmed to have an intellectual disability, individuals with borderline intellectual functioning comprise a vulnerable group:
‘It has been recognised that individuals such as Mr Thorpe-Smith who may fall slightly above the upper ceiling for a diagnosis of ID often face challenges in a society that are similar to those faced by persons with formally diagnosed ID. This is due to compromised neurocognitive, motor and social functioning.’
65I accept the opinion of Ms Cokorilo as to the impairment and its consequences in your case for your functioning and processing of information and I have concluded as follows:
·You have an impairment in executive functioning, reduced self-inhibition, self-awareness and self-control leading to impulsivity and poor understanding of other perspectives
·Limited capacity to express yourself verbally
·Compromised social decision making and functioning
·Distorted temporal perspective – your understanding of future consequences is limited
·Taken together the above factors impair your ability to exercise appropriate judgement
·Lowered intellectual capacity affects your ability to have insight into your emotional functioning and limits your ability to regulate emotional content resulting in the ‘built up anger,’ you describe
·Impulsivity in the context of ADHD, substance use, mood instability and other factors personal to you are at the core of your criminal offending.
66Ms Cokorilo considered that your risk of reoffending is high. She reached her conclusion
‘… on the basis of extensive criminal history, particularly for a young person of his age. He presents with a history of driving offences and a protracted history of alcohol and polysubstance abuse. His psychopathology is characterised by impulsivity, emotional dysregulation, negative affect, hyperarousal, disinhibition, poor self-control and executive dysfunction. Further, he has never been employed and has been predominantly homeless since leaving residential care at age 17. There are no apparent protective factors.’
67Some of your risk factors can be mitigated through treatment such as AOD, psychological and pharmacological interventions. However, given your current level of insight and psychological disturbance, Ms Cokorilo opines that you ‘will require long-term intensive support towards rehabilitation.’
68Ms Cokorilo also recommends that you have a neuropsychological assessment.
69Ms Cokorilo also refers to what you reported to her as having spent a total of 6 years incarcerated since the age of 13 as presenting a significant risk of institutionalisation.
70Your Counsel, Mr Jackson, in his comprehensive and helpful written outline placed emphasis upon the following statement from Ms Cokorilo’s report:
‘Mr Thorpe-Smith is a 23 year old male of Indigenous heritage who emanates from a highly dysfunctional background characterised by maternal psychopathology, paternal alcohol and drug use, exposure to chronic family violence, disrupted parental attachment, and early placement into out of home care where he suffered physical abuse. Such an invalidating early environment has undoubtedly contributed to the ensuing pattern of maladjustment evidenced by low educational attainment, lifelong history of unemployment, homelessness, early onset of criminality and initiation of alcohol and polysubstance abuse.’
71I accept that assessment. The community is rightly despairing and angry at the dangerous conduct you have engaged in, and the violent conduct perpetrated against Mr Nanov. I must denounce the conduct; I must impose a sentence that appropriately protects the public and deters others from similar conduct.
72But the community also understands that there are a confluence of events in your life, surrounding circumstances, and factors personal to you such as your cognitive functioning, that have shaped you and your responses throughout your life- and in that sense, have brought you to this point in it.
73Early exposure to family violence, family instability, placement into residential care, your experiences in residential care, gravitation towards illicit substances at a tender age, loss and grief, intellectual disability, ADHD, homelessness, poor education – are all well understood criminogenic factors.
74Understanding the combined effect of all of these factors is central to assessing your subjective responsibility for the offending.
Youth
75You were 20 years old at the time of committing the aggravated burglary and assault and 22 at the time of the driving offences. You are still young - 23 years old now. The principles relevant to the sentencing of youthful offenders have some application in your case.
76The law recognises that young people are more prone to engage in rash, impulsive, thoughtless decision making and may act without the ‘insight judgment and self-control’ of those who are older.[1]
[1]R v Mills [1998] 4 VR 235 at [241]; Azzopardi v The Queen (2011) 35 VR 43 [34] – [40], [44] – [45].
77In your case, the effect of youth in this sense must be considered alongside your intellectual capacity and complex psychopathology. Ms Cokorilo summarised the interrelation of these considerations as follows at [91]:
‘… in addition to biologically encoded psychosocial immaturity and associated vulnerability, cognitive impulsivity inherent in his untreated ADHD in combination with his intellectual limitations would have additionally heightened his age-related biological and neurodevelopmentally normative impulsivity of an adolescent.’
Other Factors in Mitigation
78Your background and deprived childhood, and the relationship with exposure to violence, drug use and addiction at a young age, enlivens the principle often referred to as the Bugmy v The Queen (‘Bugmy’) principle.[2]
[2]Bugmy v The Queen (‘Bugmy’) 249 CLR 571.
79Principles set out in the cases of R v Brooks and R v McKee also have application.
80The Bugmy principle applies in the assessment of subjective responsibility in respect of any offender whose responses and behaviour have been so indelibly shaped and influenced by childhood experiences of deprivation, destitution, neglect and disadvantage, that the courts recognise a difference in the level of subjective responsibility when measured against other offenders.
81Your drug use and its relationship to the offences before me is an indicia of childhood deprivation. In circumstances where addiction is encountered at a young age, in circumstances where no moral blameworthiness attaches for the commencement of drug use, the relationship between drug use and the offending, particularly in combination with other factors, can attract mitigation (McKee per Buchanan, J.A. at [12]-[14] and per Vincent, J.A. at [21]).[3]
[3] See R v McKee [2003] VSCA 16 per Buchanan, J.A. at [12]-[14]; DPP v Brooks [2008] VSCA 253 per Vincent, J.A. at [21].
82In R v Fernando, Wood J at 9 stated:
‘While drunkenness is not normally an excuse or mitigating factor, where the abuse of alcohol by the person standing for sentence reflects the socio-economic circumstances and environment in which the offender has grown up, that can and should be taken into account as a mitigating factor. This involves the realistic recognition by the court of the endemic presence of alcohol within aboriginal communities, and the grave social difficulties faced by those communities where poor self-image, absence of education and work opportunity and other demoralising factors have placed heavy stresses on them, reinforcing their resort to alcohol and compounding its worst effects.’
83Your upbringing and early childhood development had a number of features referred to by Wood J.
84Similar concepts have been referred to elsewhere, including in the decision of DPP v Heyfron per Kaye J, at [56] to [59].[4]
[4][2019] VSCA 130.
85In an ACT case of Douglas and Albone v R,[5] the Court of Appeal stated:
‘The age of an offender when he or she became addicted and the degree of judgment open to them at that age is thus relevant in evaluating the extent to which they should be punished for consequential criminal conduct.
…It must be doubted whether the moral culpability of a child of 8 or 11 who, because of an abused background or other compelling circumstances, acquires a drug or alcohol addiction can be equated with that of an adult or much older juvenile who, for his or her self-gratification, chooses to experiment with illicit drugs and thus becomes addicted.’
[5] (1995) 56 FCR 465.
86In your case, I find that there is a relationship between your drug use and the offences before me, in an explanatory sense, which can be regarded as a mitigatory factor, due to your age and the circumstances which led to your drug use. This factor is perhaps better understood as forming part of the circumstances that attract Bugmy mitigation, and it is in that way that I take it into account.
87As I have stated, the relationship between your traumatic and dysfunctional upbringing, your substance abuse, impaired functioning, your history of offending and incarceration, and your offending in the present case is centrally relevant to a proper assessment of your subjective culpability.
88In Bugmy,[6] the High Court described the manner in which factors of disadvantage are relevant to an assessment of an offender's moral culpability in the following terms:
'The circumstance that an offender has been raised in a community surrounded by alcohol abuse and violence may mitigate the sentence, because his or her moral culpability is likely to be less than the culpability of an offender whose formative years have not been marred in that way…
The experience of growing up in an environment surrounded by alcohol abuse and violence may leave its mark on a person throughout life. Among other things a background of that kind may compromise the person's capacity to mature and to learn from experience. It is a feature of the person's make-up and remains relevant to the determination of the appropriate sentence, notwithstanding the person has a long history of offending…
Because the effects of profound childhood deprivation do not diminish with the passage of time and repeated offending, it is right to speak of giving 'full weight' to an offender's deprived background in every sentencing decision.'
[6]Bugmy [40], [43] – [44].
89The court went on, of course, to temper the concept of 'full weight,' with particular reference to individuals who have demonstrated an inability to control a violent response to frustration, and the corresponding increase in the importance of protecting the community from that offender.
90As I have noted, community protection is prominent in your case. Effective rehabilitation provides one avenue of community protection. It does come with risk, however.
91Your childhood experiences are inextricably linked with your limited cognitive functioning and your eventual decline into substance abuse and criminality. The interplay of these factors needs to be considered as a whole, rather than individually. Put another way, the combined effect of the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
92In my view, the interplay of these factors does provide significant mitigation in your case.
93I have approached your cognitive functioning as a matter attracting mitigation of subjective culpability as part of the Bugmy factors, rather than in a Verdins sense. Whilst there is some nexus between your functioning and your offending, it is better understood as part of the constellation of factors, personal and external, that led to you being at the centre of this offending, in the Bugmy sense.
Participation in Koori Court
94You are a proud Aboriginal man, a Wotjobaluk man, who faced up to the challenges of the sentencing conversation.
95I take into account your participation in the Koori Court sentencing conversation. You engaged fully with the Elders, Uncle Wally Harrison and Auntie Jackie Stewart. It was not easy for you. It is recognised that participation in the KC sentencing conversation is more burdensome than a general list plea.
96This was a very difficult sentencing conversation – given the tragic circumstances. Your Uncle also participated in the conversation in a positive and impactful way. You faced the challenge from your Elders and were respectful and appropriately reflective and remorseful.
97The Koori Court Sentencing Conversation provides a strong vantage point for the Court to assess your remorse and the genuineness of your sentiments and expressed intentions.
98I find that you are genuinely remorseful for the impacts of your crimes.
99Your connection to culture and family is a source of strength and purpose for you, which you were urged to draw upon in the years ahead. I accept that you are genuine in your intentions to seek to address the underlying traumas in your life, and the inter-generational trauma, and find a way to break the cycle of offending behaviour and incarceration.
Remorse
100I accept you are remorseful and further support for this is found in Ms Cokorilo’s report.
Plea
101Your pleas of guilty entitle you to a considerable discount, particularly so given the increased utilitarian value of a plea in this Court at this time.
Impacts of COVID-19
102Your experience in custody these past 799 days has been in the restrictive and stressful environment that has been necessary due to the pandemic. It has therefore been more burdensome than otherwise and I take it into account.
103I am guarded about your prospects of rehabilitation, given your criminal history, and the risk factors associated with your functioning and background to which I have referred.
104Nevertheless I accept the recommendations of Ms Cokorilo as to the assistance you require on a pathway to rehabilitation in the future, I accept that your engagement with the Phoenix organisation, the NDIS support you now have and your engagement with Hard Cuddles are all positive signs for your future rehabilitation.
105Further, your participation in the sentencing conversation, the maturity you showed during it, the strong support from your uncle, and what I have found regarding remorse provide a basis for some optimism.
106Given your relative youth and the factors which I have referred to under the Bugmy umbrella, I consider that a longer than usual period of parole is appropriate in your case.
107I have taken into account the principle of totality.
108As I have touched upon, the seriousness of the offending before me places general deterrence, denunciation and community protection as prominent factors.
109I sentence you as follows.
Indictment L11573443
110On charge 1 Aggravated Burglary you are sentenced to 3 and a half years’ imprisonment.
111On Charge 2 Causing injury intentionally, 12 months’ imprisonment.
112On the relevant summary offence of unlawful assault 1 month imprisonment.
Indictment M11570431
113On Charge 1 Dangerous driving causing death you are sentenced to 4 years and 4 months imprisonment
114Charge 2, Failing to render assistance, 9 months’ imprisonment.
115Charge 2, Theft, 3 months’ imprisonment.
116On the Relevant summary offence of unlicensed driving 3 months’ imprisonment.
117On charges 1, 2 and 3 I order that you be disqualified from obtaining a license for a period of 5 years.
118All sentences to be served concurrently save for the following orders for cumulation.
11918 months of the sentence imposed on charge 1 on the first indictment to be served cumulative on the sentence imposed on charge 1 on the second indictment.
120Six months of the sentence imposed on charge 2 on the first indictment to be served cumulatively on the sentence imposed on charge 1 on the second indictment.
121Four months of the sentence imposed on charge 2 on the second indictment to be served cumulatively on the sentence imposed on charge 1 on the second indictment.
122That makes a total effective sentence of 6 years and 8 months’ imprisonment.
123I set a non-parole period of 4 years before you are eligible for parole.
124I declare that you have served 799 days PSD
125Pursuant to s 6AAA, were it not for your pleas of guilty I would have sentenced you to a total effective sentence of 8 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 5 and a half years.
0
6
0