Director of Public Prosecutions v Wright

[2023] VCC 753

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

AT MILDURA

CRIMINAL DIVISION

CR 20-00791

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

v

Peter WRIGHT

---

JUDGE:	His Honour Judge Moglia
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	9 May 2023
DATE OF SENTENCE:	11 May 2023
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Wright
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2023] VCC 753

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

---

Subject:Criminal Law – Sentence – guilty plea

Catchwords:              Culpable driving causing death – negligently causing serious injury –blood alcohol concentration three times legal limit – experienced driver – familiar location – personal matters carry less weight – long term serious brain injury – prison more burdensome – extra curial punishment – reduction of delays in this court

Legislation Cited:      Crimes Act 1958 (Vic); Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic)

Cases Cited:Worboyes v The Queen [2021] VSCA 169; R v Whyte (2002) NSWLR 252; DPP v Neethling (2009) 22 VR 466; Stephens v R [2016] VSCA 121; R v Ciantar (2006) 16 VR 26; DPP v Gany (2006) 163 A Crim R 322; DPP v King [2008] VSCA 151; R v Barci & Asling (1994) 76 A Crim R 103; Verdins v R (2007) 16 VR 269; DPP v O’Brien [2023] VCC 505; DPP v Mitcham [2023] VCC 464; DPP v Kellala [2023] VCC 47; DPP v Egel [2022] VCC 645

Sentence:Total effective sentence six years and six months; two days reckoned as already served; non-parole period three years and 11 months; 6AAA: eight years, eight months with a non-parole period of five years and six months

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the DPP	Mr D. O'Doherty	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr B. Newton	Dribbin & Brown

HIS HONOUR:

1Peter Wright, you have pleaded guilty to one charge of culpable driving, causing the death of Jordan Radman, and one charge of negligently causing serious injury to Jeremy Gowers, both arising from a collision on 27 May 2019.

Summary of offending

2The agreed basis for your guilty plea is set out in the prosecution opening dated 17 February 2023, which I summarise as follows.

3On 27 May 2019, you drove to your friend Mr Gowers' home after work.  Mr Radman, who had recently returned from a trip to the USA, met you there to catch up.  You all then went to the Red Cliffs Club for drinks and a meal.  Mr Gowers took his vehicle home, and you collected him before you drove the group to the club.  You planned to leave your vehicle there and get a lift home afterwards.

4You all arrived at the club at around 5.30 pm, stayed there for around three hours, leaving at about 8.30 pm.

5You all left together in your car at 8.42 pm. You were the driver, Mr Gowers was seat belted in the front passenger seat, Mr Radman was in the rear passenger seat and not wearing a seatbelt.  You had a blood-alcohol concentration of a little over three times the legal limit at the time.

6You were driving in a 60 zone along Indi Avenue where it takes a sweeping curve to the right near its intersection with Anne Cox Drive.  You were driving at about 80 kilometres an hour and, as you entered the curve, steered too sharply to the right.  You overcorrected to the left, causing the car to rotate and slide sideways into a concrete power pole on the northern verge just past Anne Cox Drive.  The main area of impact on the car was the rear driver's side door.

7The prosecutor relied on aerial photographs of the location and other photos of the scene (Exhibit A).

8Mr Radman was in the rear passenger seat of the car, a Mercedes, at the time of the collision.  He sustained fatal chest and head injuries and died at the scene (Charge 1, culpable driving).

9Mr Gowers was in the left front passenger seat of the car.  He sustained multiple rib fractures, a collapsed lung, a fractured shoulder blade, internal bruising and lacerations which required surgery.  He was initially conveyed to Mildura Base Hospital, then airlifted to the Royal Melbourne Hospital, from where he was discharged after about seven days on 4 June 2019 (Charge 2, negligently causing serious injury).

10You were trapped in the driver's seat and extracted by emergency services personnel. They initially took you to Mildura Base Hospital, from where you were later air lifted to the Alfred Hospital in Melbourne.  You remained there in a coma for about 10 days and then in intensive care for a longer time.  You were then transferred to the Alfred Health Acquired Brain Injury Rehabilitation Centre in Caufield, until discharged in September 2019.

11A sample of your blood was taken upon your arrival at the Mildura Base Hospital.  It had a blood concentration of 0.168%.

12Later, a forensic physician at the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine, Dr Angela Sungaila, examined the evidence and attempted to calculate your blood alcohol concentration at the time of the collision.  She stated that it could have been higher, as much as 0.203 or 0.238; however, she accepted that some of that alcohol could well have been in your stomach and not yet absorbed into your blood at the time of collision so would be irrelevant.  The prosecution rely on the 0.168 per cent reading, it being the most reliable indicator of your level of intoxication.

13A Victoria Police collision reconstructionist, Detective Sergeant Hay, examined the scene and concluded that you were travelling at about 80 kph when you steered sharply to the right and about 70 kph at impact with the pole.

14The wreckage of your car was inspected later and found to have no mechanical faults or failures that would have caused or contributed to the collision.

15The prosecution allege that you drove while so affected by alcohol as to be incapable of having proper control of your vehicle and you have accepted this.

16You live now knowing that your driving has caused the death of one of your friends and serious injuries to another.  It is a burden you will bear for the rest of your life.

17Similarly, the lives of the Radman's family have been changed forever.  The impact of your offending is described in their victim impact statements (Exhibit B).

18His mother Martina Radman has been struck with a terrible emptiness and loneliness since the incident.  She wrote of a gentle, generous, and kind young man who used to light up the room wherever he ventured. Mr Radman was her whole world and losing him felt like half of herself had been ripped away.  This loss has impacted her mental health.  She tries her best to keep up a strong façade but struggles to manage her emotions.  Little things everyday remind her of her son and that he is not coming home. She wrote that if Mr Radman was still here, he would remind the family to stick together and navigate the disaster as a unit, but unfortunately his tragic departure has caused the family to splinter.

19His father Carlo Radman has been devastated by the loss of his son.  They were just reaching an age when they were better able to understand and relate to each other, but this has been cut short.  His mental health has become fragile and even little things can have a big impact, as they remind him of his son.  He feels aimless in life and work.  It is not getting any easier and he wishes that no other parent ever has to live through this pain.

20His sister Tiana Radman was traumatised by the loss of her best friend.  She has lost the plans for future adventures they had together.  Previously quite social, she now feels isolation, emptiness, and fear. Her recall, cognition and memory have suffered.  She is angry at herself for failing to make progress and struggles to find meaning in her life and work because of her sadness.

21None of the Radmans or Mr Radman's friends should have had to suffer what they have described.  As is too often the case, you did not set out this night or at any time to cause any harm to anyone, but the consequences of your driving are immense.  While I expect these proceedings in court will do little to lessen their pain, I thank Mr Radman's family and friends for their courage and honesty.

22Neither should Mr Gower have had to suffer the serious injury that you caused, nor his family and friends the stress and difficulties that have flowed from it. 

Procedural history

23As to the procedural history, in this case you were charged on 4 March 2020, quite some months after the collision. However, at that stage a real question about whether you were fit to plead because of your brain injury and cognitive impairments was raised shortly afterwards, on 23 June 2020.

24A judge conducted the required investigation into this over 6 and 7 May 2021 and in his report dated 9 June 2020 clinical neuropsychologist Dr Peter Dowling found you to have suffered an extremely traumatic brain injury during the collision and recommended that a further assessment be conducted a year later. That investigation was adjourned until April 2022.

25Ultimately, having received further reports and hearing evidence, the court determined on 5 December 2022 that you were fit to plead.  You promptly offered to plead guilty, and you were arraigned in this court on 20 January 2023.  I accept that you have pleaded guilty at the earliest practicable opportunity.

26Your plea is of significance.  It demonstrates your acceptance of responsibility and a willingness to facilitate the course of justice in this case and that, according to legal principle, will result in a reduction in your sentence.  The usefulness of your plea is greater than usual in circumstances where the COVID-19 pandemic has placed a great strain on the court's ability to hear a long backlog of trials, so the reduction in your sentence must be pronounced and obvious.[1]

[1] Worboyes v The Queen [2021] VSCA 169, [35]-[39].

27You were granted bail, having been charged, and have remained under treatment and the care of your family since leaving hospital in September 2019.

Personal circumstances

28You were born in Dandenong in March 1980.  You were 39 years old when this collision occurred, and you are now 43.  

29You live with your parents Denise and Gary, who both are in their late 60s.  Your father is a builder, and your mother is a home maker, she having suffered a workplace injury and remains at home caring for the family from there.  Your older brother Alan lives and works in the City of Shepparton.

30During your formative years, you moved with your family around Victoria, and you enjoyed a happy childhood with no difficulties.

31You started school in Colignan, then went to Beaconsfield Primary and Pakenham Secondary until Year 9.  You struggled academically but reported no behavioural or social difficulties.  You enjoyed playing football.  Upon your return to Colignan, you worked seasonally in the orchards and grew pumpkins, sending them to markets in Melbourne and Sydney.

32You moved to Red Cliffs, and you began a carpentry apprenticeship with your father.  You completed a Certificate IV in Building and Construction at TAFE.  

33When you were 21 you were injured playing football.  You suffered a knee injury.  You did some farm work for a while and then spent approximately a year working on drilling rigs in Western Australia for a mining company.  

34At around 22 you returned here to work full time with your father.  Your building skills cover carpentry, plastering, painting, and tiling and you have used those skills in mainly residential building works.

35At around that time you even worked for Mr Gowers' father, driving a tractor.  You did other seasonal work with similar tasks.

36Your first significant relationship was with Melissa.  It began when you were around 23 and ended when you were about 30.  She moved to Adelaide to take up studies there in dental hygiene.  Around the time of your breakup with her, you formed a business partnership with you father and the two of you completed many house renovations working together.

37Your second significant relationship, with Julie, began when you were 33 and it ended a couple of years ago, a year before this incident.  She had three children from another relationship, and you found step-parenting difficult but you persisted. The relationship ended.  You do not have any children of your own.

38Following the breakup with Julie, you stayed with a long-term friend residentially.  While you were at that house, you undertook renovation projects and some of those, one, caused you significant financial loss.  That troubled you; you trusted your clients.

39As to your drinking history, you started drinking alcohol at about 16 with school and football friends.  That was not a problem.   At about 23, during your first relationship, you reduced your alcohol consumption to an occasional beer on the weekend, clearly still not a problem.  That pattern continued during your relationship with Julie and after you broke up with her in 2018 you started spending more time with your friends and you estimated that if it was a Friday night you might drink up to 12 beers.  You were not always drinking mid-week, but when you did you might consume quite a few.  On the day of the collision, you had begun drinking with Mr Gowers at around midday.  Mr Radman joined you later and, as I described, you went to the club for dinner.

40You have no criminal history, save for having been fined $400 for drink driving in 2002, more than 20 years ago now.  You lost your licence for three months and there is no suggestion that you breached that order.

41Your family, friends and clients have provided statements in support of you and to help the court understand your background (Exhibit 5).

42Clients Fiona Ryan, Ken Mansell and Eric Wright have employed you as a builder over the years and they can attest to your reliability, diligence, and professionalism.  You showed high-level organisation skills and attention for detail and you prioritised safety procedures in your projects.  You were a builder with exceptional skill, and you pursued perfectionism.  Mr Mansell stated that you were his preferred supplier because he could always rely on you to deliver the highest quality and standard of work.

43Friends Fay Groves, Lee Thomas Nagle, Alistair Rayner and Malcolm Blagus wrote of you as a considerate, kind and reliable man.  Mr Nagle wrote that you were always extremely responsible behind the wheel, and he was completely shocked when he found out about this case.  Mr Nagle and Mr Blagus both stated that such driving was wholly out of character for you, and it saddens them to see the impact of your brain injury on your quality of life and future.  Mr Rayner has observed your guilt and remorse, even to the extent that it stopped you wanting to go to the club and play golf again.  You have since been able to do so, which seems to be a positive social aspect of your recovery.

44Matthew Kenny, a long-standing friend of yours for more than 28 years, described in detail your genuine and good-natured personality.  He wrote that you never had nasty and petty arguments with friends, you were always the one to cook or bring food to social gatherings.  When Mr Kenny suffered a severe spinal cord injury in 2012, you provided him with ongoing and unwavering support.  You travelled up to six hours from Red Cliffs to visit him.  You helped with tasks such as weekly lawn mowing, garden watering and equipment packing.  You even constructed a small wooden ramp to provide him access to his mother's home.  Mr Kenny emphasised that this is only one example of the kind acts that you performed across the Nangiloc and Colignan communities.

45Your aunt and uncle, Lois Harper and Paul Harper, wrote of your generosity and caring nature.  Your uncle wrote that you dedicated much of your time and energy to your friends and that you were always available to help and pitch in.  Your aunt stated that your excessive drinking was a by-product of your mental instability and financial uncertainty in the fallout of your 2018 separation.  She observed that you have always been highly disciplined and well organised and that your conduct on the night of the collision was out of character.  They both observed that after the collision you have lost your self-motivation, patience, and emotional connection to the world.  Your aunt further described that you now suffer from depression and that your reputation has been ruined, which has led to further isolation.

46Finally, your parents, Denise and Gary, and your brother Alan also provided letters to the court.  They echoed many of the things written by other family members and friends, that you were a dedicated, trustworthy, and honourable individual.  Your parents are concerned for your future.  They have experienced significant stress and worry at the loss of the old Peter, but nevertheless they are here to support the new you because they know that deep down you are still the same wonderful person.  Your brother observes that regardless of what sentence you receive here, you cannot escape the life sentence which has been imposed on you via the traumatic brain injury and the loss of your friends.

47You have, through your counsel and in writing, proffered apologies to the Radmans, Jeremy Gowers and his family.  You also wrote to the court expressing your sorrow for what occurred.

48Forensic psychologist Pamela Matthews stated that your overall psychological testing results are consistent with bilateral frontal acquired brain injury and more global injury.  Both Ms Matthews and treating psychologist Lienne Wenzel expressed their concern that your 'matter of fact' presentation could be misinterpreted as a lack of empathy and remorse; however, it is a common symptom of an acquired brain injury.  Ms Wenzel observed that on the surface it may seem like you have suffered little to no cognitive damage from the collision, but in fact there is a clear decline in your social, emotional, and cognitive functioning.  This includes your increased agitation, physical and mental fatigue, and other cognitive deficits.

49Ms Wenzel expressed her concern that your diminished capacity to understand and follow rules could be misinterpreted as an intentionally uncooperative attitude.  Ms Matthews stated that your capacity to retain information and solve problems, including via trial and error, is very limited.  Your communication and learning difficulties will likely annoy and frustrate other prisoners and prison staff, which would make you vulnerable to their physical and verbal abuse.  She further stated that your capacity to predict or forecast outcomes is very low, and that you are only capable of understanding interactions and situations in a concrete and matter of fact way.  Once other prisoners become aware of this, some of them will no doubt try to take advantage of you.

Sentencing issues

50As to sentencing, culpable driving carries a maximum penalty of 25 years' imprisonment and a standard sentence of 8 years.  It is a category 2 offence under the Sentencing Act, meaning that a term of imprisonment must be imposed and not one combined with a community correction order unless very limited exceptions apply. It was not suggested by anyone that they do.

51Negligently causing serious injury carries a maximum sentence of 10 years.

52Your counsel Mr Newton conceded, and the prosecutor agreed that, in accordance with the authorities, a sentence that attracts a non-parole period was the only appropriate sentence in this case.

53Culpable driving causing the death of another person is of course a very serious matter and requires a substantial custodial sentence in order to deter others from similar driving and thereby to protect the community.  As well, such a sentence should be imposed as just punishment on those whose actions have led to such dire consequences.

54The gravity of your driving, and the level of culpability that you bear for it in this case, are high and I make that finding in the following circumstances.  You caused the death of one friend and serious injury to another; you were speeding at 80 kph in a 60 zone; you were highly intoxicated with a blood-alcohol concentration of 0.168%, more than three times the legal limit; you were an experienced driver; you were in a familiar location.[2]  The alcohol that you had consumed and that remained in your system meant that you were incapable of having proper control of your motor vehicle.

[2] R v Whyte (2002) NSWLR 252; DPP v Neethling (2009) 22 VR 466; Stephens v R [2016] VSCA 121, [25]

55As spelt out by your counsel, you have accepted sole responsibility for the consequences of your driving that night.  And as for the evidence about Mr Radman not wearing a seatbelt, you quite properly accepted that this attracts little if any weight in reducing your responsibility for his death.

56While your prior matter in WA is relevant, I am satisfied that it relates to driving that occurred a long time ago and that has not been repeated until 2019.  I accept that you are otherwise a responsible driver and not someone for whom specific deterrence or sentence focusing on community protection arises in any real significant way.

57Having said that, as the higher courts have dictated, where, as in this case, deterring others is the principal consideration, your good character, remorse, and prospects for rehabilitation carry less weight than they otherwise would.[3]

[3] R v Ciantar (2006) 16 VR 26; DPP v Gany (2006) 163 A Crim R 322, 333-4.

58Even so, your character at the time of this offence was good.  Those who know you well all attest to your good moral standing both in the family and in the community.  You were a contributor through your work, diligent and known for your attention to detail and the care with which you dealt with others and their property.  You were generous.  This offending is, I find, out of character for you and it has shocked others when they have heard about it.

59On the basis of all the material, I have no doubt that you are remorseful and that your prospects for avoiding future trouble are very good.

60Your counsel Mr Newton submitted that while general deterrence is of primary concern, it is tempered by the fact that you have suffered a serious brain injury from the collision, one that has resulted in a long-term impairment, a lifelong one, and of course all the other consequences that flow from that for you, including, for example, the loss of your capacity to work or to control the business.  The prosecutor did not dispute this and I will have regard to them.

61As Redlich JA in DPP v King[4] commented: 

'Justice tempered by compassion required that the severe and permanent injuries sustained by the [offender] in this criminal act should "be regarded as some punishment for that criminality".[5]  The injuries thus bear upon the weight to be given to both general and specific deterrence [in the sentence].'[6]

[4] [2008] VSCA 151; 187 A Crim R 219 (‘King’)

[5] R v Barci & Asling (1994) 76 A Crim R 103, 104 (Southwell, Hampel and Hansen JJ).

[6] King at [35]

62In this respect, your counsel relied on reports from the following experts:

(a)   Dr Peter Dowling, clinical neuropsychologist, dated 19 August 2022 (Exhibit 1, attaching previous reports from 9 June 2020, 4 June 2022 by way of background);

(b)   Pamela Matthews, forensic psychologist, report dated 26 April 2023 (Exhibit 2, attaching previous reports of 4 May 2020, 27 July 22, 26 August 22 as background); and

(c)   Lienne Wenzel, treating psychologist, dated 27 April 2023 (Exhibit 3, attaching previous reports dated 10 February 2020, 4 April 21 and 27 April 22 as background).

(d)   Ontario Medical Clinic dated 1 May 2023 (Exhibit 4) confirming your treatment for depression, gastric inflammation and other medical conditions.

63The prosecutor took no issue with this material, and, for completeness, tendered reports of clinical neuropsychologist Dr Amanda Nielsen dated 6 October 2020 and 13 May 2022 (Exhibit C).

64These background reports and those of Dr Nielsen all deal with the question of whether you were fit to plead, a very serious issue.  It was, however, determined in December 2022 that you were fit, whereupon you immediately settled the case.

65Dr Dowling, in August 2022 – in whose opinion you were still unfit to plead based on testing – describes you as having an extremely severe traumatic brain injury.  Two unassailable difficulties you face, he said, related to your marked memory problems and what he called an amotivational disorder, which indicates more than it sounds like.  It is not that you just cannot be bothered but that there is a brain-based dissociation between your thoughts and actions.

66The first of those conditions restricts your memory for verbal and non-verbal information, resulting in you being able to absorb very little of what you perceive and not being able to recall its context or its implications.

67The second relates to a disruption to the medial frontal cortex of your brain resulting in a disconnect between thoughts or intentions and actions.  It manifests as a loss of activity or motivation.  You have less control over your own behaviour and are dependent on environmental cues or the direction of others.  His view is that those are very likely now to be permanent conditions.

68Ms Matthews reported her opinions on your capacity to manage a period of imprisonment.  Consistent with Dr Dowling's analysis, she found you to suffer from aphasia resulting in difficulties in expressing your wants, your needs, concerns, as well as being able to understand those of others.  This makes you vulnerable to elicit reactions from prison staff and other prisoners, including punishment or assaults.

69Further, she found that due to your significant impairments in verbal reasoning you will have trouble interpreting the nuances and intentions of others, making you vulnerable to similar reactions from others, as well as to manipulation by others.

70Your impaired problem-solving and organisation will lead to frustration and anger, as has been observed at home.  So, your ability to work is limited.  Your error utilisation is severely impaired, so you are unlikely to learn from mistakes or from being told what to or not to do.

71Overall, Ms Matthews states that any time you spend in prison is likely to be very psychologically distressing, even if you are unable to express it, and will result in prison being very onerous.

72There is no dispute that this material establishes you sustained an extremely severe brain injury and that the consequences as I have just summarised will be lifelong.  As members of your family have candidly described, it is as though you are a different person since the accident.  

73I find that you have suffered a severe and permanent injury and that it should be regarded as very significant extra-curial punishment, meaning punishment on top of any punishment that I impose.

74I also find ,that because of that injury, prison will be more onerous for you than for a prisoner without such a brain injury.  Prison for you will be more punitive, if you like, everyday and in accordance with principles of equal justice and parsimony I have imposed or will impose a shorter sentence than I otherwise would have, in keeping with the principles in the case of Verdins.[7]

[7] Verdins v R (2007) 16 VR 269, [28]; see also King at [35]

75It was said, and the prosecutor did not dispute, that your prospects of rehabilitation, given your performance over recent years since the collision, are favourable and I find that you have good prospects. 

76The legislation covering cases where fitness to plead arises is based in part on the desire to establish promptly whether a person is fit and to limit delays to about a year before finalising a case.  Clearly that time period has been exceeded in your case to beyond three years.  I am not suggesting fault on any party’s part, but I do have regard to the extra burden that this time has placed on you.  Having a prison sentence hanging over your head for an extended period of time has been acknowledged as being punitive and indeed as having a deterrent effect on other people.  Even if due to your brain injury you are ill-equipped to express that burden, I find that the burden of delay has been significant.

77Your counsel invited me to consider comparative cases and I have had regard to the following, involving drivers whose culpability was based on their incapability to maintain proper control of their vehicle due to drugs or alcohol.  They are each standard sentence cases.  Each case, however, turns on their own facts and I do not regarded myself as being bound by these cases or the results in them.

(a)   In O'Brien,[8] a case of this year, the driver affected by methamphetamine, an illegal drug, drifted to the wrong side of the road, passed through a bend and collided front-on with a utility, killing its driver.  The offender was hospitalised for a significant period and suffered a permanent brain injury.  The court found such injury constituted extra-curial punishment and that prison would weigh more heavily on him as a result.  The guilty plea, although late, was given significant value in light of sparing both families the stress of a trial.  A total effective sentence of 6 years and 8 months was imposed.

(b)   In Mitcham,[9] culpability arose from the driver's blood alcohol content of 0.140%, failing to navigate a bend and colliding with trees, killing the front passenger, and causing serious injury to a backseat passenger, who was wheelchair bound for two months as a result.  The driver had numerous opportunities to not drive that day but did so and whilst his licence was suspended.  The sentence was 7 years and 9 months with 9 months' cumulation imposed on the serious injury charge.  That driver did not suffer an acquired brain injury as a result of the collision.

(c)   In Kellala,[10] the driver had consumed stimulant and sedative drugs, drifted along the roadway into oncoming traffic and collided with another car.  The value of that plea was significant as was his remorse, which came at an early stage of the proceedings and the sentence was 7 years with a non-parole period of 4 years 6 months.

(d)   In Egel,[11] the driver had a high concentration of methylamphetamine in his blood and drove along the wrong side of the road until he hit a bus head-on.  The 22-year-old front seat passenger died almost instantly.  The driver had a disrupted and very disadvantaged upbringing, which under legal principles moderated his penalty.  The sentence there was 7 years and 6 months.

[8] [2023] VCC 505

[9] [2023] VCC 464

[10] [2023] VCC 47

[11] [2022] VCC 645

78When arriving at the appropriate sentence in your case on Charge 2, causing serious injury to Mr Gowers, and in setting an appropriate degree of cumulation or overlap if you like, I have been conscious of not imposing double punishment given that both offences arose from the same course of driving.  I have aimed to impose a total sentence that is proportionate in all the circumstances and to avoid a crushing sentence having regard to your particular condition.

79I sentence you as follows:

(a)   On Charge 1, culpable driving, 5 years and 8 months;

(b)   On Charge 2, negligently causing serious injury, 1 year and 7 months;

80Ten months of the sentence on Charge 2 is to be served cumulatively upon the sentence on Charge 1, making a total sentence on of 6 years and 6 months.

81I fix a non-parole period of 3 years and 11 months.

82I declare that you have served 2 days and direct that this be reckoned as a period already served under this sentence.

83In accordance with 6AAA of the Sentencing Act 1991, but for your guilty plea I would have imposed a total sentence of 8 years and 8 months and a non-parole period of 5 years and 6 months.

Ancillary orders

84As defined by section 87P of the Sentencing Act, both offences in your case involve serious motor vehicle offences and in accordance with section 89, I cancel any driver licence you hold and disqualify you from obtaining a further one for a period of 2 years from today.  

85In accordance with 89C of that Act, I find that your driving on this night occurred while you were under the influence of alcohol.

- - -