Director of Public Prosecutions v Wilson

[2022] VCC 898

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

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

Case No. CR-20-00521

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

v

WILLIAM WILSON

---

JUDGE:	HIS HONOUR JUDGE MULLALY
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	23, 24 and 25 May 2022
DATE OF SENTENCE:	10 June 2022
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Wilson
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2022] VCC 898

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

---

Subject:   CRIMINAL LAW
Catchwords:            Sentence – Dangerous Driving Causing Death – Possessing Cannabis – Failing to Stop – Moral Culpability – Mental Health – Plead Guilty – COVID times – Denunciation – Deterrence – Rehabilitation.
Legislation Cited:     Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic); Road Safety Act 1986 (Vic);
Cases Cited:            Stephens v The Queen [2016] VSCA 121; Woldesilassie v The Queen [2018] VSCA 285; Pan v The Queen [2020] VSCA 42; Worboyes v R [2021] VSCA 169; R v Verdins & Ors [2007] VSCA 102.
Judgment:                3 years and 6 months imprisonment with a minimum non-parole period of 2 years and 2 months; fined $500; licence cancelled and disqualified for 18 months.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr B Nibbs	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr D Cronin	Leanne Warren & Associates

HIS HONOUR:

1Helena Broadbent died in tragic and wholly avoidable circumstances on 28 September 2019.  She was just 32 years old.  She had her life in front of her.  It promised so much, as she was a loving mother to her two young daughters then aged only two and one, and she was 26 weeks pregnant with her third daughter when her life was taken from her.  She was a much loved daughter and sister.  Her family have been heartbroken with grief since her death.

2William Wilson, Ms Broadbent died as a consequence of your dangerous driving.  Deaths caused by driving are always tragic.  The impact on everyone involved is lifelong.  While every case is different, the circumstances of Ms Broadbent's death are quite unique.  That said, I emphasise, what caused her death was so easily avoided if your anger, and consequential dangerous risk taking, was managed on that day in a more thoughtful and considerate way.  Mr Wilson, I have no doubt your decisions and their fatal consequences will remain with you as a heavy weight for the rest of your life. 

3

Helena Broadbent was your partner.  You and she had, and were raising, two young daughters together and you were the father of the then unborn daughter when you caused her death.  Your relationship with Ms Broadbent was not without its problems.  You were the subject of an intervention order which did not exclude you from residing at the family home, but the intervention order was granted by a court to prevent and protect against family violence.  On the day of her death,

Ms Broadbent had more than once called police or triple zero as a consequence of arguments between you and her and because of her fears.

4One concern she expressed to the police, or the triple zero call takers, was that you would drive away from the family home in your vehicle, taking the children's safety seats, leaving her with the children and unable to go where she might need to go.  You had, at one point in the morning, left the family home and Ms Broadbent sent you a text message, pointing out that you had left her with no choices as, when you left, you had taken the car seats.  The issue of leaving in your car with the car seats and the implications of that was known to you from early in the morning. 

5At 12:54pm on 28 September 2019, Ms Broadbent was again on the phone to triple zero when you did go to get into your car with the child seats.  Ms Broadbent followed you out and ultimately got into the rear of your car and commenced to try to remove a child car seats.  She remained on the phone to triple zero.  I have read the transcript of the triple zero call that was occurring, as Ms Broadbent was in the rear of the car and you decided to drive off, despite the risks. 

6Of importance on this issue was that the rear door of the vehicle was not closed.  Your vehicle was one that had audible alarms that went off when the vehicle was driven or moved off while a door was open.  There was also dashboard lights and warnings.  There can be no doubt, you knew, or ought to have known, the rear door was not closed when you drove out of the driveway of the family home.  You said as much, in effect, in your record of interview. 

7As the transcript of the triple zero call makes clear, Ms Broadbent was very concerned at your dangerous and selfish behaviour in driving off, come what may.  As she said poignantly, these being her last words or the recorded words, she said, 'He's going to drive off with me and I am in [or on] the car.'  She then shouts at you, 'You fucking idiot.'  Mr Wilson, you drove from your driveway with your partner standing up in the rear of your vehicle.  It was a very short distance from where you lived in Kiwi Retreat to a T-intersection with Saratoga Avenue.  At the intersection, you turned right. 

8What occurred as a consequence of your driving and making that turn in the way you did, was captured on a neighbour's security cameras.  I have watched that film a number of times.  It is hard to watch and cannot be forgotten once seen.  It depicts the horrifying, tragic, but real life event of the last moments of Helena Broadbent's life.

9As you drove the short distance to the corner and then went around it, the momentum of your vehicle, and in particular as you changed directions to get around the corner, were such that the rear door opened and Ms Broadbent was flung out.  She hit the road with fatal force.  The head injuries caused to Ms Broadbent were such that, despite all or any efforts of the hospital, she could not, and did not, survive. 

10As your counsel pointed out in his plea, the precise speed that you were driving cannot be calculated.  Indeed, the maximum speed that your vehicle could have achieved in the short distance from your driveway to the corner was a speed less than the suburban street speed limit.  However, it is not alleged that your speed was excessive.  Your criminality was driving in the way you did with Ms Broadbent unsecured, as she was not seated, much less in a seatbelt.  The way you took the corner was not careful or responsible and certainly not, in the circumstances of Ms Broadbent standing in the rear cabin.  This conclusion is based, not on hindsight of the ultimate tragic circumstances.  It is a conclusion based on what can be seen on the CCTV footage and from the evidence of the neighbours.

11Once Ms Broadbent was flung out of the car and lay motionless on the road, you, Mr Wilson, drove your car on for a short distance along Saratoga Avenue before you stopped, got out, put the car seat back on the rear seat and then shut the rear door of the car.  You then got back in and drove off which gives rise to the summary offence of failing to stop and render assistance.  That is, you did not return to where your partner was motionless on the road with what turned out to be fatal injuries.  It only has to be said for the seriousness of your offences to be exposed.

12Others in the neighbourhood did come to her assistance.  She was taken to the Royal Melbourne Hospital.  The medical reports make clear the efforts made to assist her.  As part of that, specialists were engaged to do what could be done to see if the unborn child could be saved.  In short compass, though Ms Broadbent did not survive, her child did.  I will return to this when dealing specifically with the Victim Impact Statement tendered and written by Ms Broadbent's mother.

13You, Mr Wilson, once you had shut the rear door, drove on to the Mount Macedon area, a place you later described to the police as your hiding place or a place where you could refresh.  You went there when you felt you needed to be away from your partner and the stresses, and arguments, within the relationship.  Some hours later at 7:30pm in the evening, you were arrested.  You were distressed. 

14You answered questions in the police record of interview.  I have read that interview carefully.  Indeed, as I have made clear, I have read all the material in this case and looked at all the vision.  I did so in order to first deal with legal argument, and then to do the two sentence indication hearings.  In the final sentence indication hearing over 23 and 24 May 2022, I made it clear that a sentence of imprisonment, being three years and six months with a non-parole period fixed at two years and two months, would be imposed if you pleaded guilty.  After considering all matters overnight, with the assistance of your lawyers you pleaded guilty on arraignment on 25 May 2022.

15As I made clear in my reasons for the sentence indication that I gave, dangerous driving causing death is always a serious crime.  The appellate authorities over many years have made it clear that those who take another's life by dangerous driving must expect a significant sentence of imprisonment to be imposed.  This conclusion is informed by the need for the courts to emphasise and send a consistent and clear message of deterrence to all road users.  The message must be that, if you drive in a dangerous manner and cause the death of another person, prison awaits in all but the most exceptional cases.

16An additional factor in why this crime usually warrants a sentence of imprisonment is the need for the courts to express the community's basic respect for the sanctity of life.  Each and every life is of the utmost value.  Thus, it is necessary to express denunciation of the conduct of those whose dangerous driving causes a death.  This denunciation must be not just in the words of a sentencing judge but in the practical terms of the sentence that sees the offender incarcerated for significant terms of imprisonment.

17All that said, at common law, imprisonment for dangerous driving causing death was not absolutely inevitable.  There are examples of non-custodial sentences imposed for this crime.  Such sentences usually follow from a finding of momentary inattention of like circumstances in what is otherwise lawful and appropriate driving.  With such a finding, it can be seen that an accused moral culpability is at the lowest end of the scale.  However, in recent times, the sentencing law with respect to dangerous driving causing death have significantly changed, such that the court's sentencing discretions are now very significantly narrowed.  

18Dangerous driving causing death is now defined or described as a category 2 offence for sentencing purposes.  What that means is, that Parliament has made clear that a sentence of imprisonment must be imposed for this category 2 offence, unless very limited exempting criteria are satisfied.  Those criteria are not satisfied in this case, as your counsel ultimately conceded.

19The Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) requires me to consider the gravity of your crime and the level of your moral culpability. As to the assessment of the gravity of the crime of dangerous driving causing death, the Court of Appeal in this State in 2016 in the important decision of Stephens said:

Driving will be dangerous where there is some serious breach of the proper conduct of a vehicle, so as to be in reality and not speculatively, potentially dangerous to others.  The driving must have some features that subjects the public to some risk over and above that ordinarily with the driving of a motor vehicle, including driving by a person who may, on occasions, drive with less than due care and attention.  The court's assessment of the dangerousness of the driving will be informed by the extent of the risk which the driver created, as well as the extent of the potential harm, should that risk materialise.[1]

[1]Stephens v The Queen [2016] VSCA 121 [20].

20Later, the Court of Appeal again referred to these matters in the case of Woldesilassie,[2] where it said with reference to Stephens:

Plainly, as the court noted in Stephens, the offence of dangerous driving causing death may encompass a very wide range of conduct.  In determining the appropriate sentence, it is necessary to take into account both the objective dangerousness of the offender's driving and the moral culpability of the offender.  In particular, it is recognised that the moral culpability of the driver is of central importance in the sentencing tasks.[3]

[2]Woldesilassie v The Queen [2018] VSCA 285 [23].

[3] Ibid [23].

21The appellate courts of late have emphasised that these tragic cases are not to be dealt with in some formulated way as if a checklist of factors is determinative.  Plus, the absence of more aggravating features does not operate to mitigate sentence.  Rather, the gravity of what was done is to be derived from the driving conduct.  It shows that the accused, in some specific way, fell short of what was or is to be expected of a responsible driver in the circumstances of that day and that moment. 

22The Court of Appeal has made clear that I must avoid attempting to find detailed and fine graduations of moral culpability.  Here, the simple sad facts are that you drove off with your partner standing and unstable in the rear of the car with the door open.  It was your decision to drive at all, in those circumstances, that gives rise to the dangerousness, not so much the way you drove, though as I have said the video shows that it was not a cautious and responsible way to take that corner at all.  The risk you took is self-evidently a dangerous one and the likely harm that would and did arise once the risk materialised, was catastrophic.  

23The decision you made to drive in the way you did in all the circumstances, must be seen in the context of the anger that had arisen during the course of the morning.  Your angry decision to drive off and be away from the house and the stressful problems was one you should not have made while your partner was in the car.  As I have said, the tragic death of Helena Broadbent was entirely avoidable if you had simply and more calmly waited until the seats were out or at least she was out of the car, and thus she was safe on her driveway, able then to return to the house to care for her two small children while you cleared your head at Mount Macedon. 

24Seen in the cold light of day, you, no doubt, deeply regret what you did, in that you did not wait but, rather, drove off in the dangerous circumstances and in the manner that you did.  Your moral culpability is connected to this poor decision, rather than some momentary inattention or some falling short of the expected ways of driving in terms of speed or keeping to the road rules.  Thus, in my view, the gravity of the offending and your moral culpability are serious and concerning.  However, there are other factors in your case that do impact upon your moral culpability. 

25First, and of particularly importance to this case, is that the appellant courts have of late required sentencing judges to consider and factor in any circumstances outside the control of the offending driver, such as an inherently dangerous road design or circumstances arising from the conduct of the deceased, such as failing to wear a seatbelt.  I refer here to the decision of the Court of Appeal in Pan v The Queen,[4] and the cases relied upon in that case.  What follows is that your moral culpability is lowered because you are not the author of all the circumstances.  Ms Broadbent was in the car, unstable and without a seatbelt once she got in to get the car seats. You did not cause her to take that step.  You could and should have responded differently but you did not.

[4]Pan v The Queen [2020] VSCA 42.

26The other important aspect of your case that impacts on your moral culpability relates to your personal circumstances, in particular your mental health.  I will return back to that topic shortly. 

27

Your dangerous driving causing death is not your only offence.  By driving away you committed the dreadful crime in these circumstances of failing to stop and render assistance.  It is a summary offence with the maximum term of eight months' imprisonment.  There are more serious forms of this crime in the

Road Safety Act 1986

(Vic) concerning conduct broadly described as leaving the scene of an accident.  But this summary offence, while not as serious by reason of the lower maximum term and by reason of being a summary offence, is till troubling.  It warrants further punishment, cumulative upon any punishment imposed for the dangerous driving causing death. 

28Your crimes have had a dreadful and life-changing effect on Helena Broadbent's heartbroken family.  Her mother found writing a Victim Impact Statement very difficult.  It was an emotional and compelling document, that I will not do full justice by just quoting parts of it.  She says she cannot begin to put into words what she feels and what has been done.  She says, ‘He has destroyed my soul, crushed me’.[5] 

[5] Victim Impact Statement of Tracie Broadbent dated 8 June 2022 tendered on the Plea (10 June 2022).

29She says after this incident:

My life as I knew it was thrown into chaos.  I became the guardian of my three grandchildren, with one of them barely surviving and needing intensive medical attention.  All this in addition to dealing with the massive loss of my beautiful daughter Helena.[6] 

[6] Ibid.

30She speaks of the physical stresses upon her; that is, that her body aches so much from the stress she can barely walk.  She has headaches and panic attacks and she just does not feel she is the same person.  But she says she pushes through for the children.  She speaks  of the ongoing need for care and medical appointments and monitoring of little Helena born at 26 weeks.  She has said that looking after her grandchildren has provided some reward to her, although, understandably, at times it is overwhelming.  She has been kept busy by the children and thus, that has assisted her as she does not dwell so much on the terrible events.

31But she has not been able to fully experience all emotions and keeps much of it underneath, as she says.  She does not want the children to see her distressed.  When she is, for the only time that she describes it, alone trying to sleep, she cannot.  She gets up, she walks around, she has intrusive thoughts.  She thinks about her daughter and she thinks about the fact that she will not see her daughter grow old with her children.  She will not get to see them grow up.  She says that many things cause difficulty for her.  The small day-to-day things break her.  It is hard to hold together.  She is triggered by many matters in her life.  Every day she puts on a brave face.  She says that the idea that these three beautiful girls have to grow up without their mother causes great distress and concern. 

32

She says, whatever the sentence, it will never make up for the loss of Helena and the girls will have a lifelong sentence without being able to enjoy life with their mum.  She speaks of all the family being distressed and how dearly they miss Helena and they will do their best to help the children have a good life. 

Ms Tracie Broadbent, in that Victim Impact Statement, insightfully said that the sentence I impose can never make up for the loss of Helena Broadbent and that is so.  I cannot return things to how they were before. 

33The length of my sentence is not to be seen as a measure of the life of Ms Broadbent.  Her life was of immeasurable value to those who loved her, including her own daughters.  They are, of course, too young to express the loss, and it is hoped that, surrounded by good people, they will cope and not be too ill effected by the premature death of their mother.

34As to your personal circumstances, you are now 38 years old.  You were raised by your mother and later, a stepfather.  You had no relationship at all with your father, something that caused confusion in you as you grew up.  Your relationship with your mother was and still is very close and strong.  I have read and taken into account her letter tendered on the plea.  Though she and her partner moved to North Queensland some years ago, she remains very supportive of you. 

35Your grandparents were very important as you grew up, with your grandfather often transporting you to your sporting pursuits.  I think I have it right that your grandmother passed away while you were on remand, which caused great distress.  You did well as you grew up in sport, especially as a footballer.  You have a solid group of friends as you grew up in the northern suburbs.  Your schooling was, by and large, uneventful.  Your first employment was in labouring work in a metal fabrication business, then warehouse work. 

36At the early age of 22, you purchased an excavator and established your own earthmoving business.  However, the unfortunate theft of your excavator brought the business endeavour to an end, leaving you with loans to pay off.  But you did not let that derail you.  You moved into similar work as an employee.  You have remained working in the earthmoving profession, as I understand it, up until your arrest and remand.  After your arrest and then remand, you were then bailed but you were unemployed for a period of time.  You have, in more recent times, secured work and your current employer stands by you.  Your solid work history is very much to your credit. 

37

You have used cannabis and amphetamines in the past.  Indeed, you struggled to end your addiction to cannabis but you have been abstinent since securing your current employment; again, to your credit.  You have prior convictions back in 2008 and 2009 for possession of drugs which met by fines posed by the

Magistrates' Court.  A cultivation of cannabis offence was also dealt with by a fine in 2017.  These are relevant to the possession of cannabis found on you when you were arrested on 28 September 2019.  Of course in custody, you will be forced into abstinence and that must continue after your release, as it has in recent times.

38You have one set of driving offences in 2013, including an offence of failing to stop your vehicle when requested.  You were fined and your license was cancelled then for six months.  Your prior matters are noted but not given much emphasis in all the circumstances. 

39You were in a lengthy relationship prior to that, with the victim.  That relationship, with Helena Broadbent, did have its difficulties.  There were financial and general stressors in the relationship which saw you seek medical help from your general practitioner prior to this offending.  You were seen on a number of occasions by Mr Cummins, the experienced forensic psychologist.  He had access to the reports and letters from your treating general practitioners.  After a full analysis of all your circumstances, he made a number of points and I quote he says: 

I had the opportunity to read Mr Ahmen's letter of 21 November 2020 and to read Mr Wilson's medical notes which refer to him being diagnosed with symptoms of severe anxiety and depression in June 2018 and in March 2018 he was diagnosed with disturbed sleep for which he was prescribed medication.  He's been on anti-depressant medication and sometimes anti-anxiety medication since June 2018.  The medical notes of 27 November 2018 refer to sleeping difficulties.[7]

[7]Psychological Report of Jeffrey Cummins dated 14 January 2021 tendered on the Plea (10 June 2022), [53].

40Mr Cummins noted:

In this regard, it is significant to note there is very frequently a nexus between chronically disturbed sleep and the development of symptoms of anxiety/depression, including the development of a major depressive disorder.[8]

[8] Ibid.

41I have myself reviewed the medical notes and reports that were tendered on your plea from the treating clinicians.  In his first report of January 2021, Mr Cummins said that you reported symptoms of traumatisation in relation to Ms Broadbent's death and the nexus between her death, your legal situation and the fact that you have not seen your children since the incident on 28 September 2019.  You told him that you had flashbacks and nightmares and emotional turbulence following the accident and flashbacks of some of the turbulence in the relationship.

42

At the interviews with Mr Cummins, you presented as being severely depressed and moderately/severely agitated and distressed.  You were tearful for most of the initial interview and intermittently tearful on the second interview.  Mr Cummins formed the clinical opinion that your emotional presentation in interview was genuine and reflective of symptoms of both acute and chronic grief on your behalf.  He diagnosed you as suffering from other specified trauma and stressor related disorder in the form of a persistent complex bereavement disorder.  In his opinion, that disorder was reflective of your ongoing sense of grief in relation to

Ms Broadbent's death and also in relation to missing contact with your children.  He said that at the interview you reported symptoms, including that you very frequently were uncontrollably crying. 

43In the second report of May 2022, Mr Cummins went on to say that, on the basis of your presentation on 11 April 2022, he formed the opinion that you are now suffering from a severe major depressive disorder associated with anxious, distress and melancholic features, including disturbed sleep.  He said your presentation was more supportive of a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder with this seemingly relating, not just to Ms Broadbent's death and the circumstances surrounding her death, but also your preoccupation with the notation you may never be given consent to resume any contact with your children.

44Your counsel gave emphasis to the psychological evidence in that he said he had established an impaired mental functioning.  What was submitted was that you had, prior to the offending, depression and anxiety that was under active treatment by your general practitioner via medications.  It was submitted that, in this case, the question of your level of moral culpability was more about the decision to drive at all, as opposed to the usual scenario in these cases of driving but doing so distracted or inattentive or deciding to increase speed or perform risky manoeuvres.  Your culpability  was your driving off while your partner was standing in the back of the car and the door was still open.   

45Your counsel submitted that your poor decision was clouded by your mental state, or more precisely, your impaired mental functioning arising from your depression, anxiety and stress, were relevant in the assessment of your moral culpability.  These matters, of course, were based on the expert report of Mr Cummins.  It was said by your counsel, there was sufficient causal connection between your pre-existing state and your decision, which involved not thinking through the risks and the consequences that were there.  It was said that this lowered your moral culpability in the way defined by our Court of Appeal in the well-known decision of Verdins and in many other cases that have relied on that case since that time.[9]

[9]R v Verdins & Ors [2007] VSCA 102.

46Prosecution submitted that such a conclusion was open, but the mitigatory weight ought be small.  It was also put that your now post-traumatic stress disorder meant that gaol would be more onerous and gaol was likely to make your mental health worse.  These matters were expressly put in the report of Mr Cummins.  Again, the prosecution did not take issue with these submissions and, again, emphasised that it remains a question of weight. 

47As to my assessment of all the evidence regarding your mental health before and since the offending, it is warranted, in my view, to find your poor decision making was affected by your pre-existing impaired mental functioning in such a way as to lower, by a small margin, your moral culpability.  Plainly, you did not think things through in driving as you did and then driving off after the tragedy had unfolded.  The amelioration of my denunciation, which is connected to your moral culpability, is ameliorated in a measured and moderate way. 

48Likewise, I factor in that you will find gaol more onerous because of your current impaired mental functioning, and your incarceration may make things worse for your mental health.  You did 130 days on remand.  The intake reports from the prison indicates how confronting and dangerous you found the experience.  You were placed or elected to go into protection because of the adverse publicity surrounding your offence.  Your current mental health is complicated by reason of decisions of the Children's Court regarding you not having contact with your three very young daughters.  This adds to your grief and is a factor impacting on your mental fragility. 

49As I said, in your treatment or sessions with other counsellors, Mr Cummins came to the view that you have post-traumatic stress disorder which is likely to endure.  As I have said, and is clear by your apology that was given through your counsel this morning, this sad event will continue to haunt you.  You are remorseful and wish you had not driven as you did.  Your remorse is for the victim and her family and your children, not just for your own predicament.  You understand what has been lost, what opportunities there were, that are now no longer. 

50Your plea of guilty after the sentence indication remains valuable.  There were some triable issues but your plea of guilty means the prosecution are relieved of proving the offence and, more importantly, the victim's family have been spared the further burden of a delayed trial.  As the Court of Appeal in the decision of Worboyes v The Queen made clear,[10] the value of a plea of guilty in the pandemic is greater and thus, the mitigatory benefit to be accorded to you must be greater than in the past and palpably so.  I make it clear that my sentence, had you pleaded guilty in the absence of the crisis caused to the criminal justice system by the pandemic, would have been years more. 

[10]Worboyes v R [2021] VSCA 169.

51The effects of the pandemic are still causing significant difficulties in the operation of the courts.  I speak here for the County Court.  There are still significant difficulties confronting this court's trial lists.  Those who plead guilty, like you, will receive greater mitigation for their plea than would have been the case in the past.  The effects of the pandemic on the Corrections system have somewhat relaxed but that remains uncertain.  What can be said with certainty is, the gaols are still more onerous than in pre-pandemic times and I have factored that into the equation. 

52As I have endeavoured to make clear, the sentencing purposes of denunciation and deterrence remain the foremost concerns.  Your rehabilitation is not overlooked.  I can only facilitate your rehabilitation by allowing for a period of potential parole.  Whether you are granted parole is for others, not the court.  My sentence is imposed, mindful that you may do each day of the head sentence that I have fixed.  What I can say is, your rehabilitation or your return to your previous lawful ways is highly likely.  You should do all you can to ensure that is the case. 

53My sentence was indicated to you at the final sentence indication hearing on the 24 May, thus, in sentencing you, I repeat what I said then.  The sentence that I impose, Mr Wilson, is the following.

54For the offence of dangerous driving causing death, you are sentenced to three years and four months.

55For possessing cannabis, you are convicted and fined $500.

56For the summary offence of failing to stop, you are sentenced to four months' imprisonment.  Two months of that sentence is to be cumulative upon the sentence of dangerous driving causing death. 

57The total affective sentence is, as I have indicated, three years and six months. 

58I fix a non-parole period of two years and two months. 

59You have served 130 days on remand.  This figure, having been reckoned, I now declare that that 130 days is part of the sentence that I have just imposed.  I will ensure that the declaration I have just made is entered into the records of the court, so the prison authorities are left in no doubt you have served 130 days of the sentence that I have just imposed. 

60Had you pleaded not guilty to these offences and been found guilty of them, I would have imposed a sentence of four years and nine months, with a minimum term of three years and six months. 

61Your licence must be impacted.  It was so by the bail conditions imposed upon you for a number of years.  The minimum term that is required by the Act in terms of your licence disqualification is 18 months and I cancel all licences that you might have and disqualify you from driving in the State of Victoria for 18 months. 

62I will sign orders that forfeits the cannabis that was found in your car. 

63Is there any other orders required?

MR NIBBS:  No Your Honour. 

HIS HONOUR:  Mr Wilson that brings this matter to an end.  Your lawyers will be able to see you shortly, I hope to explain anything further.  It's necessary now that you go with the prison authorities.  I thank counsel for their very considerable assistance in these difficult matters.  Thank you, Mr Wilson. 

- - -