DPP v Janorat
[2021] VCC 139
•16 February 2021
guj
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA AT MELBOURNE | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
CRIMINAL DIVISION
CR 20-01248
Indictment No.K12736024
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| BARAMEE JANORAT |
---
JUDGE: | HER HONOUR JUDGE CARLIN | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 3 February 2021 | |
DATE OF SENTENCE: | 16 February 2021 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Janorat | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2020] VCC 139 | |
REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject: Criminal Law
Catchwords: Two charges of culpable driving causing death; offences committed whilst offender on ice; standard sentencing; Category 2 offence; high moral culpability; genuine remorse; reasonable prospects of rehabilitation; young offender.
Legislation cited: Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic); Crimes Act 1958 (Vic)
Cases cited: Bugmy v R [2013] HCA 37; Brown v The Queen [2019] VSCA 216; Lockyer (a pseudonym) v The Queen [2020] VSCA 321; DPP v Reid [2020] VSCA 247; Barbaro & Zirilli v The Queen [2012] VSCA 288.
Sentence: Total effective sentence of 12 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of seven years and two months. On each charge license cancelled and disqualified for four years.
| APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Director of Public Prosecutions | Mr D. Porceddu | Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Ms M. O'Brien | Stary Norton Halphen |
HER HONOUR:
Introduction
1Baramee Janorat, on Thursday 10 October 2019 you caused the death of two innocent people, Lynette and Robert Anderson. You were sleep deprived and high on ice when you drove onto the wrong side of Sunbury Road and collided head on with the Andersons' car. They both died at the scene. In that moment you not only abruptly and violently brought to an end their lives; you shattered the lives of many others who cared for them. You also altered the course of your life forever and the lives of those who care for you. At 24 years of age, you will be required to spend a lengthy term in prison and the knowledge of what you have done will endure long after that sentence is over.
2Immediately after the collision you were airlifted to the Royal Melbourne Hospital where you remained under police guard until 21 October 2019. Upon your release you were taken to Melbourne West Police Station, interviewed, charged and bailed. There were four committal mentions and the matter was booked in for a contested committal hearing to occur in March this year. You were then, on 23 August 2020, charged with further offences and the next day your bail was revoked. At a special mention on 9 October 2020, the committal hearing was vacated, you pleaded guilty to two charges of culpable driving causing death and were committed to this court.
3On 3 February 2021 you pleaded guilty before me to two charges of culpable driving causing death in respect of Lynette and Robert Anderson in that you drove negligently and whilst under the influence of a drug to such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control of your motor vehicle.
4After a plea on your behalf, it now falls to me to sentence you for your conduct. In arriving at an appropriate sentence, I am required by law to have regard to a variety of factors which are sometimes overlapping and sometimes contradictory in nature.[1] Some tend towards leniency and some point the other way. No one factor automatically prevails over any other. Rather, I must have regard to them all and give each one the weight it deserves in order to arrive at a just sentence.
[1] Section 5(2) of the Sentencing Act 1991.
Circumstances of the offending
5The agreed facts upon which I sentence you are set out in detail in the Summary of Prosecution Opening.[2] Suffice to say as follows.
[2] Exhibit A on the plea.
6The collision occurred when you were on your way home to Melton West after working in Sunbury as a plasterer. You started work that day at about 7 am and left Sunbury at about 3 pm, heading south along Lancefield Road towards Sunbury Road. As you were driving south, witness Renae Cozens was driving north along Lancefield Road followed by her partner Andrew Fielding.
7When you were about 300 metres away from Ms Cozens you started to veer into her lane. Ms Cozens slowed down and moved into her emergency lane to allow you to pass. In what was described by Ms Cozens as a 'sharp movement', you then drove straight across into her lane towards her. She could see you looking straight out your front windscreen as you did this. Ms Cozens sounded her horn and applied her brakes and moved further over to the left so that she was travelling partly in her emergency lane and partly in the grass shoulder.
8As you got closer, Ms Cozens could still see you staring out your windscreen. When you were about 10 to 15 metres in front of her, you stuck your middle finger outside your passenger side window, whilst screaming at her. Ms Cozens could not make out what you were saying as her window was up. After you passed her you then veered back into your lane.
9Mr Fielding, who was travelling about 100 metres behind Ms Cozens, was also forced to take evasive action. As you drove past him you were still yelling through your driver's side window.
10Soon after passing Ms Cozens and Mr Fielding you reached the roundabout with Sunbury Road and turned left, driving south towards Bulla. At this point, Sunbury Road consisted of a single lane in each direction divided by a broken white line. Each lane was bordered by a solid white fog line containing rumble strips and a wide emergency stopping lane. The whole road, including the emergency lanes, was bitumen and the speed limit was 100 kph.
11After the roundabout you drove normally in a line of traffic for a brief period until, after a very slight left to right bend in the road, you veered across Sunbury Road into oncoming traffic for no apparent reason. This was about 17 km south of, and 10 minutes after, your interaction with Ms Cozens. The driver of a Toyota Landcruiser who was heading north on Sunbury Road towards you said it 'was almost like [you were] making a B-line for [his] car'. He managed to swerve out of the way into his emergency lane. However, immediately behind him were Lynette and Robert Anderson who were not so lucky. It was impossible for them to avoid you. Your two cars collided, bounced and rotated off each other before coming to rest.
12A number of witnesses travelling along Sunbury Road, stopped and rendered assistance to the Andersons and to you. They are to be commended for their efforts which are revealed in dash cam footage of the incident. Tragically, Lynette and Robert Anderson could not be saved and died at the scene. You were injured and trapped in your car. Witnesses noticed you behaving strangely. They described your eyes as cloudy and red, with very narrow pupils and appearing to roll back into your head. You seemed confused. Directly underneath your outstretched hand, in the car door trim, was a syringe containing a clear liquid substance. This substance was not tested but a sample of your blood taken after you arrived at the Royal Melbourne Hospital was. It revealed 0.75 mg/L of methylamphetamine or ice, 0.13 mg/L of amphetamine (amphetamine being a metabolite of methylamphetamine as well as a drug in its own right), and low levels of Fentanyl and ketamine.
13Police reconstruction estimated your pre-impact speed at approximately 99 kph. No pre‑impact road marks of either car were observed, however a road surface indentation indicated the point of impact to be about 800 millimetres into the northbound emergency lane. In other words, you had crossed over the oncoming lane and into its emergency lane when you struck the Andersons' car.
14Expert medical opinion from the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine was that the level of methylamphetamine in your blood was high and the evidence suggested 'very strongly' that you were affected by that drug to the extent that you were incapable of having proper control of a motor vehicle. The levels of Fentanyl and ketamine were not considered significant.
15A respiratory and sleep physician was also asked to consider the evidence, including your time sheets, call charge records and mobile telephone downloads. He considered that in addition to the effects of illicit drugs and inattention, fatigue was a contributing factor. He noted interrupted sleep in the days leading up to the collision and that you only had 5.5 hours of interrupted sleep the night before.
16Police investigations revealed no other factors likely to have contributed to the collision. In particular, visibility, road surface, weather and the mechanical condition of your car, a Holden Cruze, were all good.
17Your counsel, Ms O'Brien, could offer no explanation for why you drove into the wrong lanes in Lancefield and Sunbury Roads. The evidence is inconsistent with you falling asleep and the prosecution do not assert that you did. The only explanation for your seemingly bizarre behaviour is your intoxication with ice and the effects of fatigue.
Objective Gravity of your offending and moral culpability
18I turn to the objective gravity of your offending and moral culpability. On any view culpable driving causing death is a serious offence. The seriousness with which Parliament regards the crime is reflected in the maximum penalty of 20 years' imprisonment and the fact the offence is subject to specific sentencing provisions which operate to constrain the sentencing discretion and promote harsher penalties.[3]
[3] Culpable drive is a Category 2 offence as defined in section 3(1) of the Sentencing Act 1991, which pursuant to 5(2H) of that Act, must be punished by a custodial order not in combination with a community corrections order unless certain exceptions exist. Further, it has a standard sentence of 8 years imprisonment.
19At the time of the offending, you were only 22 and held a P2 probationary licence. As a relatively inexperienced driver, you should have been astute to follow the law and exercise care on the road. Instead, you drove whilst tired and after consuming ice. Indeed, not only did you consume ice, you took enough of it to render you incapable of having proper control of your car. You should not have been driving with any ice in your system, let alone such an amount. Whilst it cannot be determined when you took the drug, Ms O'Brien, who appeared on your behalf, conceded that the level in your blood was such that you must have used that day. Your driving in those circumstances was grossly irresponsible and dangerous. Further, after making the initial decision to drive, you drove dangerously on Lancefield Road and then continued to drive despite having had that near miss. You drove with a primed syringe within reach. When you crossed to the wrong side of Sunbury Road it was the second time in about 10 minutes that you had crossed to the wrong side of a road. Only this time there were fatal consequences. Your conduct fell well below the standards expected of ordinary road users. It was selfish and dangerous and caused the death of two completely innocent people.
20The prosecutor, Mr Porceddu, submitted that the objective gravity of your offending was higher than mid-range and this was conceded by Ms O'Brien. I am conscious that each charge relates to only one victim, but I agree that each charge is a serious example of the crime.
21I turn now to your moral culpability. You were interviewed on four occasions in January this year by clinical psychologist Guy Coffey. You detailed several years of cannabis and ice use followed by a sustained period of abstinence until the night of 8 October 2019 when a friend offered you ice and you accepted. You claimed that occasion was the last time you used, or remembered using, prior to the collision, which, as I have already said, cannot be true. You said that you left home at about 5 am on the morning of 10 October to start work and that, although you were tired during the day, you were not drowsy and did not think your ability to work was compromised. You told Mr Coffey that apart from the first few minutes of your drive home you had no recollection of the collision, the events preceding it, nor its aftermath.
22Mr Coffey did not detect any cognitive deficits and described you as having intellectual functioning within the normal range. He did not find you to be suffering from any psychological or psychiatric conditions, either at the time of the offending or at the time of his assessment. He noted that you had a difficult upbringing but thought the association between that and your history of using illicit substances was speculative. Specifically, he did not consider that your consumption of ice proximate to the offending was an attempt to address any psychological difficulties. Rather, he believed you relapsed because of 'an entrenched attraction to drug affected states and social influence'. In that regard you told Mr Coffey that you did not experience any cravings to use illicit drugs, but were strongly attracted to the energy, euphoria and self-confidence that ice induced and when it was available you did not contemplate adverse consequences.
23Ms O'Brien accepted that none of the principles of the well-known case of Verdins were engaged. Further, she rightly conceded that the principles of another well-known case of Bugmy[4], relating to the enduring consequences of profound deprivation, did not apply. That is not to say the disadvantages you suffered in your youth, to which I shall return, are not relevant. I take your background into account as I do the fact you were only 22 at the time of the offending and still relatively immature. The law recognises that young people are more prone to make ill-considered decisions and may not fully appreciate the seriousness or consequences of their conduct. However, in my view, neither your background nor age significantly reduce your moral culpability. You made the conscious decision to use ice on 10 October 2019 and then drive. You were not naïve to the effects of the drug. You also knew you were sleep deprived. I regard your moral culpability as high.
[4] Bugmy v R [2013] HCA 37.
Current Sentencing Practices
24One of the matters to which I must have regard in arriving at an appropriate sentence for you is current sentencing practices, which may be gleaned from statistics or sentences imposed in other cases, or both. Since 1 February 2018, culpable driving causing death has been a standard sentence under the Sentencing Act 1991 with the standard sentence for an offence of mid-range objective seriousness set at eight years with a presumed minimum non-parole period of at least 60 per cent of the head sentence.[5]
[5] Sections 5A and 11A of the Sentencing Act 1991.
25The methodology for sentencing standard sentence offences is not that I engage in a two‑step process of first assessing the objective seriousness of your offence compared to some hypothetical mid-range offence and then work up or down depending on your personal circumstances or other factors. Rather, I must take into account the standard sentence and standard non-parole period in the same way as I take into account the maximum penalty, and indeed, all other relevant sentencing factors, to arrive at an appropriate sentence by a process known as instinctive synthesis.[6]
[6] Brown v The Queen [2019] VSCA 216; Lockyer (a pseudonym) v The Queen [2020] VSCA 321 recently confirmed the importance of avoiding a two tiered approach and according proper weight to relevant mitigating factors, including personal circumstances of the offender, his or her prospects of rehabilitation and, where appropriate, a plea of guilty particularly if coupled with remorse).
26The reason for looking at current sentencing practices is to promote consistency of approach in sentencing, particularly, the application of relevant sentencing principles. Whilst no two cases are ever truly the same, and other sentences are not precedents to be applied or distinguished, sentences imposed in comparable cases may provide a convenient yardstick against which to measure any sentence proposed in the instant case.
27In the case of offences subject to the standard sentence regime, such as yours, the consideration of other sentences must be confined to other sentences imposed under that regime, that is, sentences imposed for offences committed after 1 February 2018.[7] This effectively means there are no available sentencing statistics and only few comparable cases. Nevertheless, Mr Porceddu referred me to three County Court sentences and Ms O'Brien referred me to two Court of Appeal decisions, all subject to the standard sentencing regime and all involving sentences of eight to nine years for offences of culpable driving.
[7] Section 5B(2)(b).
28There is no need for me to recite the details of those cases save to mention the case of DPP v Reid[8]. That case was a Director's appeal against sentence and involved considerably more serious offending than yours. Although the sentence, including the sentence of nine years imposed on a culpable driving charge, was not disturbed on appeal, the Court did note that it was lenient, even merciful.
[8] [2020] VSCA 247.
29ASSOCIATE: Excuse me, Your Honour.
30HER HONOUR: Yes.
31ASSOCIATE: I am sorry. It looks like counsel for defence might have dropped out. There is quite a few people on the Webex so it might be because we have too many participants.
32HER HONOUR: Yes. Let me just see. Is the prosecutor - - -
33ASSOCIATE: Mr Porceddu is still on.
34MR PORCEDDU: Yes, Your Honour. I have turned off my video and my sound to increase the bandwidth. I actually dropped out as well but I reconnected pretty much after that. That is why I am not actually appearing on video just to - - -
35HER HONOUR: All right. That is good. Well, we will just see if we can get Ms O'Brien back. And if we do, we will ask her if she can also turn off her video.
36ASSOCIATE: We have got Ms O'Brien back. Are you able to hear us, Ms O'Brien?
37MS O'BRIEN: Yes, apologies, Your Honour. My internet dropped out.
38ASSOCIATE: Thank you.
39HER HONOUR: That is all right. I will not go back because I am not sure when you dropped out but what I might ask you to do is to just turn off your video because at least that saves some bandwidth.
40MS O'BRIEN: Yes.
41HER HONOUR: And I should indicate that shortly after I have delivered sentence, I will send an unrevised copy to counsel, to both counsel. So they will be able to have a copy of what I said.
42MS O'BRIEN: Thank you, Your Honour. My instructing solicitor is taking notes as well but I will turn my video off. I apologise for the interruption.
43HER HONOUR: That is all right. Thank you.
44I have had regard to all the cases to which I have been referred, but as I have already said circumstances of offending and offender always differ and there is no single correct sentence. Ultimately my duty is to impose a just and appropriate sentence on you in the unique circumstances of this case.
Background and personal circumstances[9]
[9] Your background and personal circumstances were set out in detail in the outline of Defence Plea Submissions and the report of Mr Coffey dated 31 January 2021, Exhibits 5 and 4 on the plea respectively.
45Turning to your background and personal circumstances. You were born in Thailand to a single mother and grew up in in north east Thailand. You have one half-brother who is four years younger than you.
46During your childhood, you were predominantly raised by your maternal grandparents while your mother worked in Bangkok. You told Mr Coffey that life was difficult due to your family being poor and the fact that you witnessed your mother being physically assaulted by your half-brother's father.
47Later, your mother met your Australian step-father and in 2007 your family moved to Australia. You started school in Australia in Grade 6 and did not have much English as a Second Language support. You told Mr Coffey there were no other Thai or Asian children in your class and you were bullied. You received more support during High School but still struggled academically. You were expelled from one school in Year 10 and despite enrolling in a new school hardly attended. Around this time, you started associating with drug users and tried cannabis for the first time.
48You left school at age 16 and also moved out from the family home and in with friends. Your mother attributes your move to conflict with your stepfather. You began an apprenticeship as a butcher, but also started using ice. Before long your ice use affected your work and you left. You then completed a plastering apprenticeship and have worked as a plasterer for various employers since you were 19. By the time you were 20 you were using cannabis and ice daily and you lost jobs because of your drug use. When you were 17 you travelled to Thailand to help your maternal grandmother, who was unwell. In 2018 you again returned to Thailand and attended a Buddhist temple specialising in drug rehabilitation. This was organised by your mother. You spent about nine months training as a Buddhist monk during which time you abstained from drugs and lived a humble life of work and prayer. You then stayed living in the temple for a few months before undertaking five months of Thai military service. The military training was physically demanding but you told Mr Coffey you thrived and became a platoon leader in command of 50 recruits. You returned to Australia in mid-August 2019 drug free. You told Mr Coffey you remained drug free until 8 October 2019 when you caught up with a friend and used once.
49You sustained abdominal injuries in the collision which required surgery and were hospitalised for 10 days. You have had four further admissions to hospital up until May 2019 on account of complications, but now are fine.
50You are single and have no dependants. At the time of the offending, you lived in Melton with your mother and step-father. You were bailed to that address but moved out and lived with your half-brother in breach of that bail condition. Your mother again attributed that to tensions with your stepfather.
51You told Mr Coffey that you have not used ice since the offending, but that you resumed smoking cannabis again in about July or August last year on account of insomnia.
52Despite apparent conflict with your stepfather, he and the rest of your family are supportive of you, with your mother and step-father supporting you in court.
53You have made use of your time in custody, having completed the 24-hour drug program and working in a prison nuts and bolts factory. You try to keep yourself busy by sticking to a strict routine.
Impact of your offending
54Other matters I am required to take into account are the impact of your offending on your victims and their personal circumstances.[10]
[10] Section 5(2)(daa), (da) and (db).
55Your most direct victims are of course Lynette and Robert Anderson who were 68 and 69 years old when they died. They were health and safety conscious people and, in fact, at the time of the collision were returning to their home in central Victoria from a medical check-up. They were obviously much loved by their family and community.
56I received victim impact statements from Craig Anderson (the Andersons' son), his wife, Stacey Anderson, Emma Sambrooks, (the Andersons' daughter) and David Goodbody (Lynette's brother). They have all been deeply affected by the death of the Andersons and their statements graphically reveal the loss and devastation you have caused.
57Emma Sambrooks, says that her parents' death has left a massive hole in many people's lives, including her own, her husband's, and their two sons. Her physical and mental health have suffered and she feels anguish that her children and her nieces and nephews will now never get to know their grandparents.
58Craig Anderson, says he has not only lost his parents but his best friends. He describes the 'surreal' feeling of waiting for his parents to come home on the day of the crash, only to be told by police that they had died. Stacey Anderson, describes the family unit as being shattered. They have lost their support system and have been 'robbed' of more happy family memories.
59Both Craig and Stacey also detail the financial impact of your offending. Due to the need to get the Andersons' estate in order, their own business has suffered and they have had to spend time away from their children. Stacey has not been able to work and the family farm, which was in the family for six generations, has had to be sold.
60David Goodbody describes his very close relationship with his sister and brother-in-law and how he now feels at a loss and useless. He also believes the death of Lynette destroyed their mother, who had already lost another daughter, and she died within six months.
Plea of Guilty, co-operation and remorse
61You are entitled to a discount in your sentence for the fact you pleaded guilty at an early stage. In so doing you have facilitated the course of justice, spared witnesses the ordeal of coming to court and taken legal responsibility for your crimes. This is particularly valuable in the current environment where COVID-19 has placed the criminal justice system under considerable strain.
62Whilst indicative of remorse, a plea of guilty does not, of itself, prove remorse. People can plead guilty for many reasons. Further, as the courts have made clear, true remorse is not anxiety at the prospect of being punished, nor simply regret. True remorse involves a desire to make amends and a determination to change one's behaviour.[11]
[11] Barbaro & Zirilli v The Queen [2012] VSCA 288 at [36].
63When you were formally interviewed by police you admitted owning the Holden Cruze and driving it regularly. You said it had no faults and described your activities early in the day of the collision. You also answered questions about your mobile telephones. However, you answered no comment to questions about the circumstances of the collision. Further, as I have already noted your plea of guilty followed four mentions, the matter being booked in for a contested committal, and your bail being revoked for further offending. Ms O'Brien was not aware of the reasons for this delay, although it is common for negotiations to take place between prosecution and defence.
64As I have also already noted when you were interviewed by Mr Coffey you claimed to have no recollection of the collision or your use of ice on that day. You told him that your stepfather informed you that two people had died when you were in hospital and that you were devastated. You described ruminating and feeling 'blameworthy, worthless and ashamed'. You told him you were committed to abstinence in the future.
65Whilst you did not sustain a head injury, I am not satisfied your claim of not remembering the events preceding the collision is necessarily false and I give you the benefit of the doubt in that regard.
66A letter of apology was tendered on your plea. It was addressed to me and appeared to be heartfelt. You acknowledged the pain you have caused to the Andersons' families as well as your own.
67Although your plea of guilty was not made at the first opportunity and I also have some reservations about your commitment to abstinence, I do accept that you feel genuine remorse. This is a further matter I take into account in your favour.
Your character and future prospects
68Turning to your character and future prospects. You had only one court appearance prior to your offending and that was for driving whilst suspended in December 2017. Although it is to your credit that you have no other criminal record, you cannot be regarded as a person with a blameless past because of your long history of illicit drug taking.
69Three character references were tendered on your behalf, two from Thai Buddhist monks and one from your cousin in Thailand. All spoke of your good nature. They described you as respectful, thoughtful and hard working.
70Similarly, Mr Coffey described you as a young man 'who is capable of sustained and productive work and who can do well in physically and mentally demanding, structured circumstances, viz his ability to complete apparently with some distinction, the rigors of his Buddhist training and Thai military service.'
71He further said: 'I do not believe that Mr Janorat has a propensity for criminal offending generally. He does not possess anti-social personality traits, and other than his drug addictions, he does not suffer from any mental disorder that might heighten his risk of offending. Any future risk of offending is confined, in my opinion, to the consequences of him lapsing back into substance abuse.'
72I agree with Mr Coffey's assessment of you. Your future is inextricably linked to your ability to remain drug free. In that regard it is concerning how easily you relapsed after your long rehabilitation in Thailand. On your account, you succumbed at the first temptation despite the fact you were not suffering any cravings. Doubly concerning is the fact you resumed smoking cannabis in mid last year and failed to obey the conditions of your bail. You were convicted in relation to those offences on 24 August 2020. If anything might have led you to avoiding drugs and obeying the law one would have thought it would be the fact that you caused the death of two innocent people because of your drug taking and driving.
73Overall, considering your young age, I assess your prospects of rehabilitation as reasonable.
The burden of imprisonment
74In determining the appropriate sentence, I must consider how a term of imprisonment would be likely to impact you. You are not suffering from any mental illness and you told Mr Coffey that you have coped reasonably well in prison without any change to your psychological well‑being. In short, there is no reason to think that a term of imprisonment will be particularly difficult for you. That said, I take into account the fact you are being sentenced during the COVID‑19 pandemic. I accept that a term of imprisonment during the pandemic is generally harder than at other times. Whilst the worry of contracting the virus in prison has probably abated with time, the curtailment of various activities and programs and the reduction or suspension of personal visits is an additional burden.
Purposes of Sentencing
75In addition to specifying matters to which I must have regard in arriving at an appropriate sentence, the Sentencing Act 1991 prescribes the purposes, indeed the only purposes, for which a sentence may be imposed. These are just punishment, deterrence, rehabilitation, denunciation, and protection of the community. I am obliged not to impose a more severe sentence than is necessary to achieve those sentencing purposes.
76Generally, a custodial sentence must only be imposed as a last resort. However, culpable driving causing death is a special category of offence which ordinarily must be punished by a term of imprisonment not in combination with a Corrections order and which also has a standard sentence of eight years. Even without those provisions your offending clearly warrants a substantial term of imprisonment.
77It is necessary that I order some cumulation between the sentences on the two charges to recognise the fact that two lives were lost as a result of your conduct. At the same time I must obey the principle of totality and not punish you any more than is proportionate and appropriate to your overall criminality.
78General deterrence and denunciation are of paramount importance in sentencing for offences of culpable driving causing death, particularly where drugs are involved. Anyone who is tempted to take illicit drugs and drive must be deterred from so doing in the knowledge that if they cause the death of innocent people they will be punished severely. To a lesser extent, but still applicable in your case, is the principle of specific deterrence. That is, there is a need for my sentence to deter you from doing anything similar again.
79Of course, the need for my sentence to deter and denounce your conduct is not the end of the matter. I must and do take into account the various mitigating factors I have already outlined in detail.
80Your potential rehabilitation is also something to which I must have regard. The law recognises the paramount importance of promoting the rehabilitation of young offenders, such as you. Not only is this because young people have the greatest potential to rehabilitate, but also because it is by their rehabilitation that society will be best protected. Further, it is generally acknowledged that a period of incarceration in an adult prison will most likely have a detrimental effect on a young person's prospects of rehabilitation. However, it also settled law that the importance of rehabilitation in the sentencing equation declines as the seriousness of the offending increases and culpable driving resulting in the death of two innocent people is very serious. Further, the sad fact is that culpable driving offences are often committed by young people and it is they who most need deterrence. Accordingly, whilst I do take into account your youth, it does not displace the primacy in the sentencing equation of general deterrence.
81I am obliged to say how my sentence relates to the standard sentence of eight years. Having regard to all relevant matters as part of the process of instinctive synthesis, in my view a sentence slightly above the standard sentence of eight years for each offence is warranted. Taking into account your prospects of rehabilitation, I consider the presumed minimum non‑parole period of 60 per cent of the head sentence to be appropriate.
Sentence
82On each of Charges 1 and 2, I convict and sentence you to nine years' imprisonment. I order that three years of the sentence on Charge 2 be served cumulatively on the sentence on Charge 1, making a total effective sentence of 12 years. I fix a non-parole period of seven years and two months. That is the earliest time at which you can be released, and whether you are released is up to the Adult Parole Board.
83Mr Janorat, do you understand that sentence? Again, we have got the volume turned off so if you could just nod your head. Yes, thank you.
Mandatory License Disqualification
84You have pleaded guilty to two serious motor vehicle offences as defined in the Sentencing Act and I am obliged to cancel your licence and disqualify you from driving for at least 24 months on each offence. I cancel and disqualify you from driving on each offence for four years effective from today.
85Pursuant to s.89C(2) of the Sentencing Act, I also make a finding that the offences were committed whilst you were under the influence of a drug which contributed to the offences.
Pre-sentence Detention
86I declare that you have served a total of 176 days of pre-sentence detention, not including today, in respect of the sentence I have imposed and order that this declaration be entered in the records of the court and that the period be deducted administratively.
Section 6AAA
87If you had not pleaded guilty to these charges and then been found guilty by a jury, I would have sentenced you to a total effective sentence of imprisonment of 15 years with a non‑parole period of 10 years.
Ancillary Orders
Disposal Order
88I will make the disposal order that has been sought and that is in respect of your two mobile telephones and a syringe without a tip.
89I will ask counsel now if they can just turn on their videos again and whether there are any other matters that I need to address or that counsel wish to raise with me.
90MR PORCEDDU: Your Honour, the prosecution here. No, there are no matters that I seek to put or seek to raise. So we are happy with that.
91HER HONOUR: All right. Thank you, Mr Porceddu. Ms O'Brien?
92MS O'BRIEN: Nothing further on behalf of Mr Janorat. Thank you.
93HER HONOUR: All right. Thank you. So Mr Janorat, I have asked you whether you have understood and you have nodded and indicated that you do understand. Your counsel will be able to explain the sentence in more detail if there is anything else you do not understand. Because as I said, I will be sending very soon after I conclude a copy of my unrevised sentencing remarks. Right. If we could please adjourn the court. Thank you.
94MS O'BRIEN: Thank you.
- - -
6
1