R v Singh

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Revised

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2020 0339

THE QUEEN	Crown
v
MOHINDER SINGH	Accused

---

JUDGE:	COGHLAN JA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATES OF HEARING:	11 & 12 March 2021
DATE OF SENTENCE:	14 April 2021
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Singh
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2021] VSC 182

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Culpable driving causing death – Plea of guilty – Death of four police officers on duty – Driving large heavy vehicle – Fatigued and under the influence of a drug of dependence.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr B. Kissane QC with Ms R. Harper	Ms A. Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr P. Morrissey SC	Pica Criminal Lawyers

HIS HONOUR:

Many members of our community will remember the events in the early evening of Wednesday 22 April 2020. In particular, they will remember the reports on the evening news on all local television stations. There are events which shock the public conscience; this has been such an event. The unnecessary loss of the lives of four serving police officers, simply going about their duty, is a matter of huge community sorrow and regret.
On 11 March 2021, you pleaded guilty before me to causing the death of Lynette Taylor, Glen Humphris, Kevin King, and Joshua Prestney by the culpable driving of a motor vehicle in that you drove a motor vehicle negligently and whilst under the influence of a drug of dependence to such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control of the motor vehicle. To trafficking cannabis, methylamphetamine, and 1,4-Butanediol and to the possession of Diazepam.
Through your counsel, Mr Peter Morrissey SC, you also pleaded guilty to the related summary charges of dealing with $1235, being property suspected of being proceeds of crime, and to the possession of cartridge ammunition without being licensed to do so.
It is necessary for the purpose of sentencing you to set out in some detail the background of the matter and the events of the days leading up to your principal offending, that is the four charges of culpable driving. In setting out the material I have called heavily upon the Chief Crown Prosecutor's opening which became Exhibit 1A on the plea and I have viewed the footage which was tendered as Exhibit 1B.
On 22 April 2020, you were driving a Volvo Prime Mover and trailer which weighed almost 20 tonne. You were employed by a company called Connect Logistics and had been so employed since 26 February 2020. You had previously worked for that company between June 2017 and April 2018. You had worked as a driver for another company in the time in between. You were still on your six-month probationary period. You were working permanent night shift, your hours were 4 pm to either 3 am or 4 am for five or six days a week. Your work involved delivering products on behalf of Ingham's Pty Ltd. Your work commenced either at the Emergent Cold complex in Dandenong South or the Lyndhurst depot at Lyndhurst. Deliveries were made to Thomastown and Somerville.
When you recommenced your employment with Connect Logistics you were required to undergo induction which involved, among other things, being given a driver's manual which covered fatigue, drugs and alcohol, fitness to drive, self-assessment and overall health and safety requirements. You signed documents acknowledging that you understood the requirements and conditions of your employment. You have never provided a completed medical certificate certifying your fitness to drive a fatigue-related heavy vehicle, even though you were required to do so.
Your behaviour over the days preceding 22 April is important. On 18 April you finished work at 2.10 am. An examination of your phone records show that up until 10.30am the longest period of outgoing cellular inactivity was two hours and 53 minutes. At 10.30 pm that night you booked into a room at the Dandenong Motel on the Princes Highway. In the early hours of 19 April 2020, you collected Kirsty Richardson and took her to that motel. You spent 12 to 14 hours together, consuming ice (methylamphetamine[1]) and used 1,4-Butanediol. You consumed alcohol and Richardson smoked cannabis. You had about two hours’ sleep.
[1]In these reasons the expressions both methylamphetamine and methamphetamine will be used. I will use them as they have been used by the relevant authors.
The effect of your combined drug use was such that the two of you struggled to continue your use of drugs. Because of what she observed of you, Richardson thought you were tired and believed you had not slept for two or three days.
Shortly after 10 am, you dropped Richardson off in Springvale. She told you to get some sleep. You went to Dandenong at about 10.42 am and stayed there until approximately 1.30 pm. At about 1.42 pm you met with Rene Dickson at Dandenong South where the two of you discussed gear prices and quality. You swapped four and two points of methylamphetamine.
Sometime later you went to Simon Shaw's house in Hampton Park. Shaw later reported that he thought you were on something and said you could not even speak. Your phone records show that between 1.52 pm and 7.52 pm, the longest single period of outgoing cellular inactivity was one hour and 17 minutes. You sent messages to Dickson asking her to drive to Mornington as you were off your head. You had offered her three points to do so but she did not return your calls. You did go to Mornington, arriving at 9.25 pm, and remained there for a short time, making a sale of methylamphetamine.
An analysis of your outgoing telephone records shows that between 9.30 pm and midnight you had little opportunity for proper rest. From midnight it seems you had the opportunity for 5.5 hours rest. Over the next five hours you made numerous outgoing communications leaving a period at most of one hour and 14 minutes for rest. It was then 20 April.
At about 11.05 am, you met with Dickson and provided her with 3.5 grams of ice and 28 grams of 'bud' (cannabis). Dickson paid you about half of the amount due. You were driving your blue Toyota Camry. From about then until 4.15 pm the longest single period of outgoing cellular inactivity was one hour and 30 minutes.
You arrived at work at 3.37 pm and left Emergent Cold complex at 4.15 and started making deliveries. Just before 10.30 pm, you picked up Glenys Nannup in Narre Warren in your work vehicle. You still had a delivery to make to Thomastown and told her to hide in the truck. You made that delivery about 11.45 pm.
After leaving Thomastown at about 12.10 am, on 21 April, you parked the truck and the two of you injected methylamphetamine. You returned to the Lyndhurst Depot. Nannup had gone with you and you dropped her off at the entrance to the depot at 1.17 am. You finished work at 3.20 am and picked her up in your blue Camry as you were leaving the depot. You drove to various places before dropping her off at Southland. It was then about 8.45 am. You gave her $50 and three points of methylamphetamine.
You drove to Dandenong to meet Jose Ramirez. He later reported he was still going, he had not been to sleep. The two of you smoked some ice. At that time you told Ramirez (referring to a girl):
'He said he had to give her money to make her go away. Before we had driven anywhere he was telling me about. He said she said she was a witch and she wouldn't leave the car, leave the passenger seat… She told him she practices witchcraft and he thought she was a witch. It was this chick he said cursed him. He said cursed because of what had been happening to him that night, that she wouldn't leave the car no matter how much he begged.'
You and Ramirez pooled your money and drove to Frankston to buy an ounce of methylamphetamine. You continued to talk about the curse but you were nodding off from time to time while driving as a result of your drug use. Ramirez took over the driving.
The two of you went to the Fountain Gate Bunnings to buy acetone. Ramirez told you that you would kill someone if you did not get some sleep. You drove away to meet Rene Dickson. You met Dickson in Sandringham about 1 pm. She remembers you saying that you were tired and giving her two points of methylamphetamine.
During the afternoon you communicated with a number of other drug associates before leaving the Cranbourne area and going to the Emergent Cold complex. You signed a ‘pre-trip check’, a ‘safety inspection’ and the ‘fitness for duty’ form and began to make deliveries and returning to the depot.
At about 6.30 pm, you met a customer on the side of Abbotts Road and sold him 19 grams of cannabis for $100.
At 11.45 pm, you left Thomastown for the return trip to Lyndhurst.
At 1 am, on 22 April, Stephen Harrison from Connect Logistics was trying to find you but you did not answer your phone. At about 1.35 am, the night supervisor, Kerry Haitana, found you trying to reverse your truck into the wrong loading bay. You told Haitana that you had been having some trouble at home with your wife and family and that you were stressed. Haitana thought you looked over tired and you were initially slow to react. He directed you to the correct dock. He called Harrison about 1.40 am and raised concerns about you. Harrison said that he would talk to you.
At 2.12 am, you told one of your fellow workers you were not feeling well and that as you were coming down the road (referring to Abbotts Road) you had nodded off for a second or two. You borrowed a phone and spoke to Harrison for more than four minutes. You left the Lyndhurst Depot shortly afterwards with a delivery. That delivery was cancelled and you returned to the depot at 3.30 am. Haitana found you again reversing into the wrong dock and reported the matter to Harrison.
A short time later Harrison spoke to you to see if you were okay. Harrison has said:
'Matt appeared physically like he had something on his mind. He didn't look tired, he looked not frustrated but confused.'
He recommended to you that 'you see a doctor about counselling for his personal issues.' He advised you to call Simiona (Simon) Tuteru who was the dayshift supervisor for Connect Logistics to tell him of the conversation.
Haitana raised your fitness to drive with Harrison and asked him to inform Tuteru of his concerns. You left work at 3.46 am and at 4.30 am, your son, Gurdeep found you in a disoriented state in the driveway of your Cranbourne home. You went to Gurdeep's car window and asked him to call his mum. He thought that it was strange as his mother was inside the house. You said that you had been sent home from work, they told you to go and see a psychiatrist. You told Gurdeep that you were going to get the sack.
You told your son ‘that a witch was messing with his head’ and ‘that a witch was following him, that a witch was pulling him towards her’. At one stage you pointed over towards the road indicating that that is where the witch was. Gurdeep left for work. You went into the house and woke your wife, Amarjit, and told her that the company had sent you home and asked you to see a psychiatrist. You said that you had been seeing a witch who changed her clothes.
From 4.30 am till 7.30 am, the longest single period of outgoing cellular inactivity on your phone was one hour and 43 minutes. You left home shortly after 7.30 am, you drove to an address in Dandenong where you sold an associate between 1 gram and 1.7 grams of methylamphetamine. The associate told you to go home to bed and have a sleep. At 8.34 am, you bought a meal at McDonalds.
Between 8.52 am and 9.12 am, you exchanged text messages with your supervisor, Simon Tuteru. In those exchanges, the following appear:
8.51 am - SINGH: 'Hi Simon, saw Steve last night about it, I'm going through some hard times at home and other things. I need to come and speak to you about some of them, I don't know who to tell the story to, I'm going to a doctor about it, can I come and see you'.
8.53 am – TUTERU: 'Talk this arvo, I will be in the office'.
8.54 am – SINGH: 'Okay, but Steve saids I'm not fit to drive'.
9.00 am – TUTERU: 'Steve is not a doctor'.
9.12 am – SINGH: 'Okay, thanks'.
About 9.15 am you sold an associate 3 grams of cannabis for $50. At about 11 am you went to a house in Cranbourne where you saw Nikita Hawthorne. In describing that meeting she said 'He was off it. He was talking nonsense, he was saying the witches are coming and we have to leave. I've never seen anyone as drug-fucked in my life. He hadn't slept for eight days, he was falling asleep, he was mumbling as he was falling asleep, though he never actually had a sleep'.
At about 1.38 pm, Harrison messaged Tuteru. He said:
'Hi Simon, has Matt called you? He came in to see me last night and I'm concerned about his mental state. He told me he's not in a good spot. He was putting trucks on wrong docks and he had a sleep on the way back from Thomastown and slept in. He didn't get back to Lyndhurst till around 2 am. I was trying to ring him but his phone was off. I don't think he should be driving, I told him to go to the doctor straightaway. I will leave it with you to maybe make contact with him if he hasn't rang already'.
Tuteru responded by saying he would speak to you.
You arrived home at about 2.30 pm, your daughter Harpreet thought you looked distressed. Your son Gurdeep woke up. Harpreet recorded your rambling about witches and curses.
You left home at about 2.45 pm and arrived at the Lyndhurst depot about 3.30 pm. You met Simon Tuteru and the two of you went over to your vehicle and where you spoke and prayed for about 44 minutes. You agreed to deliver a single load to Thomastown and then returned to Lyndhurst. You signed a fitness to drive form and left the deport at 4.50 pm.
At 4.52 pm you stopped to get something out of your car. At 4.48 pm you stopped on Abbotts Road to supply an associate with methylamphetamine. He got into the truck to collect the drugs and then got out again. After you had completed that transaction, which is in explicable in the context, you set out to make your delivery to Thomastown. Three CCTV cameras along the route show you repeatedly drifting into the emergency lane until you crashed into the police officers in and their vehicles on the Eastern Freeway in Kew.
At about 4.51 pm, on 22 April 2020, Leading Senior Constable Lynette Taylor and Constable Glen Humphris of the Road Policing Drug and Alcohol Section, while driving an unmarked white Hyundai, Santa Fe motor vehicle (‘the first police vehicle’) intercepted Richard Pusey who was driving a black Porsche 911 Turbo S coupe. They had been travelling west and Pusey had been pulled over into the emergency lane a short distance after the Burke Road entrance ramp.
As I have already indicated, you had left the Lyndhurst depot at about 4.58 pm.
Leading Senior Constable Taylor requested the assistance of another police vehicle at 5.15 pm and Senior Constable Kevin King and Constable Joshua Prestney arrived at the scene in their blue marked highway patrol vehicle (‘the second police vehicle’) at 5.22 pm. They parked behind the other police vehicle in the emergency lane.
CCTV from Eastlink shows you veering out of your lane between Police Road and Springvale Road. You were observed by other motorists when travelling on the Eastern Freeway from the Melba Tunnel in Ringwood to repeatedly drift from the first running lane into the emergency lane. You were travelling at between 85 and 90 kilometres an hour. On the section of the freeway between the Doncaster Road exit and the Bulleen Road exit you drifted into the emergency lane on three or four occasions. On at least one occasion you drifted completely into the emergency lane before veering back into the running lanes.
After the Bulleen Road exit you were observed to move from the third lane of the freeway to the second lane, then into the first lane, without indicating your intention to make any of these changes. One witness who saw that driving somewhat prophetically observed to his mother, 'This dude's going to fucking kill someone'. No brake lights were observed from that point.
As you were coming down the freeway, Senior Constable King was standing at the front passenger side of the first police vehicle and Leading Senior Constable Taylor and Constable Prestney were talking whilst standing between the open passenger side doors. Constable Humphris was standing approximately between the first police vehicle and the Porsche. He was supervising Pusey, who was urinating on the other side of the guardrail. All of the police officers were standing in the emergency lane on the inside of the vehicle.
The truck which you were driving was fitted with reasonably sophisticated safety equipment, which was to prove of no avail. At 5.36 pm you swerved into the emergency lane. The front mounted radar sensor of your truck detected a ‘forward collision warning event’ and the ‘collision warning with emergency brake’ was activated. A red light signal was projected on to the inside of the windscreen that changed into a flashing light and an acoustic signal sounded. Over the next two seconds your truck travelled 50 metres at 87 kilometres an hour. At 5:36:24 pm you crashed into the back of the first police vehicle. An ‘airbag event’ was recorded and a ‘braking event’ was triggered. That is, the brake pedal was pressed in a panic situation. It appears you did not react and brake until after the collision.
The events were captured on dashcam footage from other drivers. The footage shows that at 5.36 pm the truck which you were driving veered completely into the emergency lane and struck the police vehicles, the Porsche, and the four police members. Very many passersby rendered assistance, but Leading Senior Constable Lynette Taylor, Constable Glen Humphris, Senior Constable Kevin King, and Constable Joshua Prestney died at the scene as a result of the multiple injuries they had received.
I have viewed the footage on a number of occasions. It is chilling. The police officers had no hope. It shows the inherent danger police officers face while going about relatively routine duties. Their deaths are entirely unnecessary and should have been avoided. Their deaths were caused by you. The circumstances and the essential background I have described constitute the four charges of culpable driving.
An expert examination of the crash scene carried out by Detective Sergeant Robert Hay confirmed the matters set out above. He calculated your speed at the point of impact to be between 62 and 80 kilometres per hour. He found no mechanical matters which might have contributed to the collision.
You were arrested at the scene and taken to hospital. You were then unfit for interview. You were interviewed on 26 April 2020. The prosecutor placed emphasis on the following replies:
(i)'The whole thing, I was – I was sleeping at the time, I was tired.’ (Q334)
(ii)‘He should have let me stay home. I wanted to stay home. I didn't want to work that day like that. I didn't want to work because I was sleepy and tired.’ (Q359)
(iii)‘I can still see them in the front of my truck and I tried to slam the brakes on and I couldn't stop it, I couldn't stop it'. (Q364)
A blood sample taken from you after the collision contained 0.58 mg/L of methylamphetamine and 0.06 mg/L of amphetamine and 0.06 mg/L of Midazolam and 34 ng/mL of Droperidol.
Toxicologist Dr Sanjeev Gaya concluded: 'I am of the opinion that at the time of the collision methylamphetamine would have impaired his driving ability to such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control of the motor vehicle'.
An analysis of your mobile phone data, output and work records show that in the 72 hours preceding the collision, you had five hours of potential rest. Professor Matthew Naughton states: 'This degree of sleep deprivation would severely impair his capacity to drive safely, similar to someone with a blood alcohol greater than 0.1… closer to BAC of 0.3. Sleep loss accumulated acutely (within days) upon a background of chronic sleep loss (over weeks) in the setting of shift work (over weeks) contributed to this collision; and the combination of sleep loss and illicit drugs would have had a multiplicative effect on his ability to control his white Volvo prime mover and thereby contributed to the collision’.

The findings of the experts indicate that the collision occurred when you drove negligently and while under the influence of a drug to such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control of the motor vehicle.
I am also obliged to sentence you for the drug offences and the summary offences to which you have also pleaded guilty. The circumstances of those offences are as follows.
At the Royal Melbourne Hospital police seized $95 from your wallet. The search of your blue Camry left at the Lyndhurst Depot also revealed $1,140. And that is the uplifted summary charge of dealing with property suspected of being proceeds of crime, in total $1,235. Three bags of cannabis weighing a total of 83.1 grams and two bags of methylamphetamine weighing 3.1 grams were located in the truck.
Searches of your mobile phone together with the evidence of witnesses show that between 1 January 2020 and 22 April 2020 you had trafficked in various ways a total of 3,923 grams of cannabis over 19 transactions. These included the transactions referred to earlier in this sentence and the cultivation of three cannabis plants at your residence. The value of the trafficking was at least $1,380.49. That is Charge 5, trafficking in a drug of dependence (cannabis).
Between 1 January 2020 and 22 April 2020 in various ways you trafficked a total of 14.34 grams of methylamphetamine over 35 transactions. They included the transactions referred to earlier in this sentence. The total value of the trafficking was at least $2,840.50. That is Charge 6, trafficking in a drug of dependence (methylamphetamine).
Between 4 April 2020 and 22 April 2020, in various ways you trafficked a total of 1,000 millilitres of 1,4-butanediol for $250 and another total 9.7 grams of 1,4-butanediol over two separate transactions. That is Charge 7, trafficking in a drug of dependence (1,4-butanediol).
A search of your home revealed 3.61 kilograms of cannabis, 9.7 grams of 1,4-butanediol, 0.64 grams methylamphetamine, nine tablets of diazepam and a further 14 tablets of diazepam in the Toyota Camry. That is Charge 8, possession of a drug of dependence, namely diazepam. And a single round of ammunition with 'H' engraved on the base, which is the uplifted summary charge of possessing ammunition.
Lynette Taylor was a Leading Senior Constable of Police aged 60 years at the time of her death. She is survived by her husband, Stuart Schulze and their two sons. Leading Senior Constable Taylor had been employed by Victoria Police for 31 years, having graduated on 12 May 1989. In 2011 she began working in the Road Policing, Drug and Alcohol section.
Glen Humphris was a Constable of Police aged 32 years at the time of his death. He is survived by his partner, Todd Robinson. Constable Humphris graduated from the Police Academy on 12 March 2020. At the time of the collision he was on a temporary placement at the road policing, drug and alcohol section.
Kevin King was a Senior Constable of Police aged 50 years at the time of his death. He is survived by his partner, Sharron MacKenzie, and their three sons. Senior Constable King graduated from the Police Academy on 5 December 2014 and in April 2019 joined the Nunawading highway patrol.
Joshua Prestney was a Constable of Police aged 28 years at the time of his death. He is survived by his parents, Belinda and Andrew, his younger brother Alex and his girlfriend Stacey Ryall. Constable Prestney graduated from the Police Academy on 19 December 2019. At the time of his collision he was on a two week placement with the Nunawading highway patrol.
On the plea I received the following victim impact statements:
(i)Sharron MacKenzie, partner of Kevin King;
(ii)Michelle Segers, sister of Sharron MacKenzie;
(iii)Stuart Schulze, husband of Lynette Taylor;
(iv)Senior Sergeant Tim Price, the work place manager of Lynette Taylor;
(v)Andrew Prestney, father of Joshua Prestney;
(vi)Belinda Prestney, mother of Joshua Prestney;
(vii)Alex Prestney, brother of Joshua Prestney;
(viii)Doris Anderson, grandmother of Joshua Prestney;
(ix)Jane Lydiate, aunt of Joshua Prestney;
(x)Stacey Ryall, girlfriend of Joshua Prestney;
(xi)Todd Robinson, partner of Glen Humphris;
(xii)Mark Humphris, father of Glen Humphris; and
(xiii)Katie Tyson, mother of Glen Humphris.
I received victim impact statements also from:
(i)Andre DiCioccio, who was a civilian witness;
(ii)Amanda Sampson, a civilian witness;
(iii)Andrew Tsoi, a civilian witness;
(iv)Leading firefighter, Geoffrey Brereton;
(v)Shelly Tennant, Ambulance Victoria commander at the scene;
(vi)Kimberley McDonald, Victoria Police member at the scene; and
(vii)Wayne Gatt, Secretary of the Police Associate on behalf of the members generally.
The grief of those close to each of the victims is profound and life changing. Such grief is heightened by the sudden and unnecessary nature of the deaths. In relation to the victim impact material, most of them were read to the court either by the makers of the statements or by junior counsel for the prosecution on their behalf. The statements were thoughtful, considered, powerful and moving. We can only hope as a community that as time goes by some amelioration of their suffering can come about.
I have taken the victim impact material into account. For the victims, today is the end of one episode in relation to the terrible saga that they are on. It will not end today because we know that there is at least one other person charged with offences arising out of the deaths of your loved ones and that is a matter that will still have to make its way through the criminal process.
Your criminal history was filed on the plea and admitted by your counsel. You have a number of court appearances and some traffic infringement notices from 1990. Your court appearances were between 1990 and 2000. Your offending was not very serious but I note that you have two prior convictions for driving with middle range concentration of alcohol.
On the plea, a report prepared by forensic psychiatrist, Associate Professor Andrew Carroll, dated 17 October was tendered on your behalf. Associate Professor Carroll had been provided with a large amount of information about you, particularly from members of your family. Your personal history is taken from that report.
You are now 48 years old. You were born in Lallian, a small village in the Punjab in India. You have a younger brother who lives in Australia. You have two parental and one maternal half-sisters. You have little to do with your half-sisters.
You came to Australia with your mother in 1978. Your father was already here. Your brother was born in 1979, you became an Australian citizen in about 1980. It appears that your family life was difficult and you were often left to care for your younger brother, in part at least because your mother was working. Your parents often quarrelled. Your son provided your solicitor with material about what he knew of the family history. That material, as I have already said, was provided to Associate Professor Carroll.
Your son said that in 1982 or 1983, your family had bought a house in Griffith, New South Wales where you lived happily together as a family. In 1987 your father divorced your mother and married her sister in India. They came to live with your family in Griffith. There was much disharmony. Your father was violent towards your mother. You were greatly concerned about your mother's welfare, which affected your schooling.
You were asleep next to your father when your mother attacked him with a knife. You stopped her. Your father and his wife then moved out of the house. You told Associate Professor Carroll that from about the age of five you had seen ghosts. He regarded it as significant that you reported that your mother said that as a child she had also seen a ghost. In 1988 when you were 16 or 17 after your father left and you were very upset. You started telling your mother that you could see a lady sitting on your bed and your chest and following you around. You conducted a séance, in which the table moved around on its own and knives were flying through the air. You sought police assistance but the police could not help you. Your brother has confirmed your interest and involvement in those matters.
You left school after year 11. At about that time you left home. You were homeless and spent some time in Queensland. You did not have anything to do with your father for many years. You moved back with your mother in Leeton in 1994. By then she had re-partnered. At about that time you started seeing ghosts again and other supernatural phenomena. You moved between your parents over the next few years. In 1996 your father and step-mother took you to India to be married. You came back to Australia but later returned to India where you stayed for six months. You married. Your wife became pregnant and you returned to Australia. Your son was born in 1997 and your daughter in 1999.
You were supposedly happy during that time. You have usually been employed but during that period of time you changed your jobs often because you did not enjoy the work that you were doing. You have used marijuana since you were a teenager. You started using ice when you were about 20 and from the age 23 to about 29, you spent about $100 a week on it. I suspect that it was probably not ice at that stage because you later told Associate Professor Carroll that you started using methamphetamine at age 30, usually by snorting it. That must have been about 2002.
You then did not use for about 13 years. During that period you abused alcohol until, in your forties, you eventually ceased alcohol abuse. In about 2004 you started a car-carrying business. You moved to Melbourne and lived in Endeavour Hills and in 2007 you moved to Cranbourne, the place where the family house still is. During that time you were abusing alcohol. You repeated your Griffith ghost stories and claimed to see ghosts here.
In 2007 you started working for Toll. In 2008 your family went to India and you went to Griffith to stay with your mother. You saw UFOs following your car when you were there. Since that time you have continued to claim that you have been followed by UFOs who are trying to hijack you. Many of your experiences appear to have been on a particular stretch of road in New South Wales. In 2012 you became a driving instructor for a while but then left Toll. Although you had been anxious when you first came to Melbourne, about that time you began to experience anxiety attacks.
You were treated for anxiety in 2012 and given medication for a number of months. In 2013 your excessive drinking continued and it was noted that your liver was being adversely affected by your excessive drinking. You apparently did not use marijuana when you were a heavy drinker. You do not appear to have been a heavy drinker in recent years.
You reconciled with your parents in 2015 but a further dispute arose between you and your father in 2017. You have not had contact with him since but have contact with your mother. You have not readily made friendships which you have kept.
Your work record has been good. After Toll you worked for KS Rubbish until 2015, when you left to work for Connect Logistics, where you worked for two or three years.
You recommenced your use of ice in about 2016. You smoked, snorted, and injected it. You told Associate Professor Carroll, 'The last couple of years it's been most days, with some breaks for a day or two.' You said that you used big amounts, two or three points a day, amounting to about one gram a week. You said you took it for work because it helped you stay awake. You said your marriage hit a bad patch and you had associated with the wrong crowd.
Your wife reported that your mental health seemed to deteriorate when you started night shift about five years ago, which incidentally seems to correspond with your recommencement of the use of methamphetamine. About five years ago you developed a gambling habit which started with sports betting but went on to pokies. You said that you had gambled through the time you had used methamphetamine and Associate Professor Carroll has said that is not an uncommon phenomena.
You said that you had been working long hours and building up gambling debts and paying for it by selling drugs, that is your drug and gambling debts. You also took out $30,000 in loans and misused your wife's credit card which caused tension at home. In relation to the loans, you appear to have forced your wife to take them out.
You reported to Associate Professor Carroll that some years ago you had seen lights in the fields which followed you. You came to believe that those lights were connected to dead prisoners. You reported that such experience had been more frequent in the last five years or so but you had stopped getting scared. You had other experiences of being pursued by lights in the last two or three years.
Your wife, son and daughter also reported that your mental health appeared to have deteriorated over the last few years with further reports of you seeing ghosts, constant trouble communicating and attending to relatively simple tasks. You have also been more aggressive. You have declined to seek mental health support.
In 2018 you went to work for Eastern Liquids for one or two years. You appear to have had some trouble with bullying and racism during that employment. Your friend, Victor Labios, says that in the early part of 2019 on more than one occasion you would say to him about being able to see things, such as old soldiers, dead Aborigines and lights following you. Eventually you left that employment and went back to work for Connect Logistics in early 2020.
You visited your GP in 2015, 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020 and made no complaint about any psychiatric issues. When you attended for a TruckSafe medical in 2020 you did not provide the complete form.
In March 2020, after a gap of five years, you made contact with your brother. You told him you were experiencing unusual experiences on a daily basis, mostly involving soldiers, both living and dead, from World War II. On 3 April you sent him a long text messages about figures you saw but said they were harmless.
In dealing with Associate Professor Carroll you provided him with a history of your recent drug taking. You said that you had been taking methamphetamine morning and afternoon to the extent of two or three points a day over five or six months. You said that you have been using twice daily for days, but only once on the day of the collision. You said you had used GHB the week before and cannabis rarely. You acknowledged that you knew you should not have been driving when using methylamphetamine because it is an illicit drug.
Associate Professor Carroll set out your reported history of the events in the days leading up to the collision, particularly relating to your dealings with

Glenys Nannup. She met you in the early hours of 21 April and you injected ice together. She told you she was a good witch and not to mess with her as she would mess with your head. You told the police she put a spell on you and would not get out of the car, that she changed her appearance and made you see stick figures. You repeated that to Associate Professor Carroll in May 2020 and said that you were still seeing the stick figures.
You said in the days leading up to the collision you were seeing the stick figures which you believed to be a result of the curse. You believed that your methamphetamine use made you more able to see supernatural things. But by October 2020 you accepted that ‘the ice would have had an effect’ on your mental state.
You told Associate Professor Carroll what had occurred in the early hours of 22 April at the depot. You said you were seeing stick figures and told Steve about. You said he sent you home as you were unfit to drive. He told you to contact Simon in the morning. It appears that you have a clear and reasonably accurate recollection of those events. Your wife and son confirm what you said to them at about 4.30 am.
In the morning of 22 April you continued to have interaction with others in which you mentioned witches and seeing stick figures. Witness Nigel Hawthorne, who you saw about 11 am, said your state had been deteriorating over the preceding month.
You told Associate Professor Carroll about the exchange with your family at about 2.30 pm and said that your son had said that you should go and see a psychiatrist. You drove back to work because you feared you would lose your job if you did not attend. You said that you had a discussion with Simon in which you told him about seeing the stick figures and that you should not be driving and you were not right to drive. Simon, who is a lay pastor, prayed with you and it appears that he thought that he had rid you of the stick figures and therefore regarded you as fit to drive. You accepted his instruction.
Associate Professor Carroll in his report, under the heading, 'Opinion', concluded at paragraph 227:
'The clinical picture, including the nature of his symptoms and the time and the cause of their subsequent resolution is very typical indeed of a methylamphetamine induced psychosis. I note in particular:
·     escalation of his pattern of usage in the preceding week or so resulting in high plasma levels and little sleep;
·     prominent visual rather than auditory hallucinations;
·     no evidence of formal thought disorder;
·     delusional interpretations of the effects of methylamphetamine use itself (i.e. his belief that it ‘opened a window’);
·     delusional beliefs about a person that he encountered in the drug using subculture;
·     associated garrulousness and pressure of speech based on the bodycam evidence in the hours following his apprehension, which resolved over the following few days;
·     significant diminution in activity of psychotic symptomology in the few days (based on consultation liaison psychiatry note); and
·     further resolution of his psychosis over the following weeks and months in custody (with only occasional residual hallucinatory phenomena) with low dose antipsychotic medication.'
And at paragraph 228:
'His schizotypal personality traits would have rendered him more vulnerable to developing psychosis when using methylamphetamine. They also account for the fact that even now his insight into his psychotic experiences remain incomplete.'
Mr Morrissey SC, who appeared on your behalf, called Associate Professor Carroll to give evidence on the plea and tendered a reference from your wife who attributed to your difficulties largely to the circumstances of your upbringing. Mr Morrissey SC spoke to his detailed written submissions. He relied upon the evidence of Associate Professor Carroll to support the major thrust of his submissions. Mr Morrissey SC submitted that I should view your offending as somewhat below the midrange of seriousness. He recognised that the objective features which would make your decision to drive and you continuing to drive were:
·The defendant was heavily affected by narcotic abuse;
·The defendant was sleep deprived and had been for days;
·The defendant knew it was risky to drive for both these reasons;
·The defendant drove for some distance after deciding to drive; and
·The defendant was driving a large, heavy vehicle on a busy highway replete with other drivers (though not pedestrians).
It was submitted that these factors augment the seriousness of the objective conduct. However, that it is neither necessary nor appropriate to characterise the driving as unusually egregious.
The Chief Crown Prosecutor, Mr Brendon Kissane QC, who appeared with

Ms Robyn Harper, Crown Prosecutor to prosecute, accepted those features of objective seriousness but submitted that those features did make the driving unusually egregious and it must be taken into account that it was driving which, in the final result, caused four deaths.

I have taken the view that the nature of the vehicle being driven by you is an important feature of the seriousness of these cases because of the inherent dangers to other road users by such a large vehicle being driven by you when you are not in a fit state to do so to a significant degree.
It should be noted that you had driven for almost an hour before the collision occurred. I fix the seriousness of your driving, and therefore your conduct, as well above the midrange. I accept that the appalling driving seen in other cases is not present in this case. It is not a significant distinction.
It was further submitted on your behalf that there were unusual subjective elements in your case and:
'The defendant was mentally unwell and actively psychotic at the time of the offending. His conditions had a relevant and substantial causal link to the offences. His offending conduct was committed reluctantly and only occurred under the position and influence of his employer. He was vulnerable to influence because of his state and because of his employment relationship'.
The prosecution do not accept the first two of those factors or that much weight be given to the other two factors.
Mr Morrissey SC submitted:
'The mitigating effect of your psychological inflictions which include these, moderate personality disorder with schizoidal and borderline features. A methamphetamine-induced psychotic disorder with methamphetamine use disorder and being actively psychotic. There was a substantial causal link between those conditions and the conduct, particularly the decision to drive, even though other factors were relevant, accepting a measure of self-inflicted frailty, he was in a piteous state.
And later:
‘One should recognise but not overstate the mitigatory effect of the psychosis Dr Carroll made clear that your decision to drive occurred in the context that you were actively psychotic. Directly intoxicated and reassured by Simon's ritual. Thus your overall capacity for judgment was significantly impaired but he also made clear that the decision was made against the backdrop of fear of dismissal, pressure from employer, appreciation of fatigue and appreciation of driving was illegal, wrongful and potentially risky'.
The prosecution submitted that the causal connection was not made out because the psychosis is linked directly to the ingestion of methylamphetamine. The prosecution does not accept that the analysis of Associate Professor Carroll's finding support the contention that the disorders played a significant role in the decision making process.
As part of the request to Associate Professor Carroll in the report he was asked to prepare, he was asked to answer specific questions. One of those was:
'Whether he was in a position to reason with a moderate degree of sense and composure about whether the conduct as perceived by reasonable people was wrong'
From paragraph 212 of his report onwards, Associate Professor Carroll responded:
212) By conduct I referred here to his decision to drive the truck when he was both sleep deprived and intoxicated with methamphetamine.
213) It was noted above at the time of the decision to drive, Mr Singh was actively psychotic. He was not acutely hallucinating but he remained preoccupied with his delusional beliefs that he had been cursed by a witch and that as a result he would continue to be troubled by seeing stick figures when driving.
214) In addition to the effects of the psychotic episode, Mr Singh was also affected by the direct psycho-physiological impact of methamphetamine intoxication. Based on the subsequent rapid changes in mental state and behaviour over the following days, as the intoxication subsided, I conclude that Mr Singh was suffering with feelings of agitation, anxiety and a propensity to overtalkativeness in large part as a result of the direct intoxicating effects of the stimulant.
'It is therefore likely that consistent with the known effects of methamphetamine, his cognitive capacity for executive function, including capacity for reflection and judgment, such as weighing up the risks and benefits of behavioural choices was significantly compromised by methamphetamine intoxication, irrespective of the psychosis. Consistent with its longer term effects, on encouraging his propensity to gamble, this effect would have facilitated a more risk-taking, impulsive and imprudent course of action. His underlying personality-based propensity to impulsiveness and risk taking would thus have been exacerbated.
215) At interview with me in October 2020,

Mr Singh said that he felt no different after this praying ritual and that the curse had been too strong for him regarding Simon's attempt to dispel the curse. I note, however, that at interview with the consultation liaison psychiatrist in April and at interview with me in May, he described feeling significantly different after Simon had prayed with him. On 28 April 2020 at MAP he also described having Simon's head in my head. 216) On balance, and assuming that his more contemporaneous account in April and May better reflected his state of mind at the relevant time. I consider it more likely than not that he did believe at the time that Simon's ritual had indeed made it less likely that the stick figures would return. There was interaction between his psychosis and Simon's behaviour in carrying out the prayer ritual. This appears to have reassured him to some extent about one of his concerns about driving the shift, that is the problem of the stick figures.
217) Thus, secondary to the range of factors including the psychosis, the overall capacity for judgment, weighing up the pros and cons of behavioural choices, was significantly impaired.
218) It is also clear that both from self-report and collateral evidence that Mr Singh was also realistically concerned about the prospect of dismissal from work. He was aware that he was still on probation at his new employers. He was aware of having missed many calls from one of his supervisors on his previous shift and he was aware that he had been advised to take the day off by his immediate supervisor, Steve. He was also aware of the text messages sent earlier in the day by his more senior boss, Simon, including one that had a harsh tone with the use of capital letters, "Steve is not a doctor". I interpolate at this stage I would not have interpreted the use of that expression as being hostile towards you. I would regard it as being exactly the opposite.
219) He has consistently said that he had no intention of driving his shift when he drove to the meeting with Simon. At interview with me in October 2020, Mr Singh told me that after discussion with Simon, although he was aware that he was fatigued, he had decided on balance he could more than likely manage to drive a single load as requested by Simon, which entailed a three to four-hour period of driving. He also said that he was aware he was doing the wrong thing by driving after using illicit drugs.
220) He knew that his decision to drive was illegal, wrongful and potentially risky behaviour. He indicated to me in October 2020 that his main concern when worrying whether to drive or not was that he did not wish to be sacked.
221) Despite his psychosis and impaired judgment, there is thus no evidence that he was not aware that driving when concerned about fatigue due to inadequate sleep and after ingestion of methylamphetamine was wrongful behaviour.
222) On balance, therefore, notwithstanding his compromised capacity for judgment, in my opinion he was nonetheless able to reason with a moderate degree of sense and composure regarding the specific matter at issue, that is whether the specific conduct (driving a heavy truck when fatigued and soon after taking methamphetamine) as perceived by reasonable people was wrongful'.
Having considered both Associate Professor Carroll's report and his evidence before me, I do not accept that the causal connection contended for by Mr Morrissey SC has been made out. I must say in relation to it that, even if it had been made out, I do not believe that it would have had a substantial effect on any sentence to be imposed on you, in particular, because of the nature of the offence of culpable driving which in your case included the particulars of negligence, being fatigued, and being under the influence of drugs.
Further reliance was placed upon your psychosis, in particular because Associate Professor Carroll had said that you did not understand that methylamphetamine could cause mental illness. Were that not so, your taking of methamphetamine might have been a matter in aggravation. It is clear, however, that you knew you should not have been driving when under the influence.
Separate reliance was placed upon your personality disorder but, largely because of the other features of the case set out above, the prosecution submitted that was not open. I accept that submission.
The importance of the matters I have just set out was that, if accepted, it was submitted they would reduce your moral culpability and the need for general deterrence. In his oral submission, Mr Morrissey SC submitted that because of your condition these features in sentence would be sensibly moderated. It follows from what I have said earlier that I do not accept that submission.
A further submission was linked to the above submission in that it was put that, having regard to the state you were in generally would reduce your moral culpability. I do not accept that submission.
Another important feature of what was put on your behalf is that I should mitigate your sentence because you would not have driven had your immediate supervisor not prevailed upon you to drive, and that is a topic that received much attention from Associate Professor Carroll in his report, particularly in the passage to which I have just adverted.
I do not have evidence from your supervisor because he has been charged with manslaughter arising out of these events. Nothing I say here is intended to have any influence on his case one way or another. We might begin from the proposition, which appears to be trite, that is if he had told you not to drive you would not have done so. You have said that you did not want to drive. It appears though from what you have said that you thought that Simon had got rid of the stick figures and therefore asked you to drive the one shift. It also seems from what you have said that he had your good welfare in mind.
I accept that what he did and said was a significant influence on you. It has been put that the threat to you was that you might lose your job. In the circumstances, that proposition is somewhat illusory. You were simply unfit to do the job and had little, if any, legitimate claim to keep your position as a truck driver. In the sense that you drove to keep your job that decision was selfish. I accept that it was not an analysis which you carried out. The decision to drive was nonetheless yours. I have taken into account that you were reluctant to drive.
You have pleaded guilty to three charges of trafficking. Your conduct in that regard was relatively persistent but not at the serious end of offending of that kind. You have also pleaded guilty to the possession of a drug of dependence and the related summary offences of dealing with property suspect of being proceeds of crime and possession of ammunition.
In his written submissions Mr Morrissey SC set out the following matters,
·The defendant instantly repented his act.
·He pleaded guilty at an appropriately early stage.
·His plea his valuable in all relevant levels.
·His remorse was palpable, sustained and authentic.
·He cooperated fully with the investigation.
·He sought to keep the prosecution (and by extension the victim's families) apprised of the process of psychiatric assessment.
·He offered (and maintained the offer) to testify to the events.
·More generally he's an interesting and rather sympathetic person present with difficulties but determined to fashion a productive life and succeeding in many respects.
·In the context of inevitable significant gaol term, his prospects of rehabilitation are hopeful.
In general, the prosecution accept those matters but express reservations that your prospects of rehabilitation and your claim to sympathy. Having canvassed Associate Professor Carroll's report in detail it is not hard to see the basis on which that claim to sympathy is made. Whether or not it is a matter for separate consideration in relation to sentencing you or part of the overall circumstances may not matter at the end of the day.
I make it clear that although I have not given special weight in accordance with R v Verdins[2] (principles one to four), to the matters arising out of Associate Carroll's report, I have given weight to the matters arising out of Associate Professor Carroll's report, including your background and mental health. And I have taken them into account in determining the appropriate sentence. I have had regard to the possibility that, because of your mental health, the sentence I impose on you will be more onerous than on a person without your mental health issues (R v Verdins[3], principle five).
[2]R v Verdins (2007)16 VR 269.
[3]Supra.
I have taken into account the matters set out above which were urged in mitigation. In the circumstances, I do not regard the distinction between guarded and hopeful prospects of rehabilitation as significant. I accept that you have some prospects of rehabilitation.
For the period you have thus far been detained conditions have been more onerous than usual because of the COVID-19 pandemic and I have taken that into account.
I am obliged to have regard to just punishment, retribution, denunciation, general and specific deterrence and current sentencing practices and I have done so. I am also obliged to have regard to the principle of totality. I have regard to the various cases to which I have been referred.
The maximum penalties for the offences to which you have pleaded guilty are:
(i)Culpable driving, 20 years;
(ii)Trafficking in a drug of dependence, 15 years;
(iii)Possession of a drug of dependence, one year;
(iv)Dealing with property suspected of being proceeds of crime, two years;
(v)Possession of ammunition, 40 penalty units.
The offence of culpable driving is a standard sentence offence, for which the standard sentence is eight years.
I am obliged to cancel your licence for at least 24 months. Any period of disqualification will be largely nominal but it is relevant to the principle of denunciation.
Would you stand up please.
Mohinder Singh, on Charge 1, culpable driving causing the death of Lynette Taylor, you are sentenced to be imprisoned for 12 years. That sentence will be the base sentence.
On Charge 2, culpable driving causing the death of Glen Humphris, you are sentenced to be imprisoned for 12 years.
On Charge 3, culpable driving causing the death of Kevin King, you are sentenced to be imprisoned for 12 years.
On Charge 4, culpable driving causing the death of Joshua Prestney, you are sentenced to be imprisoned for 12 years.
I order that three years of the sentences on Charge 2, 3, 4, be served cumulatively upon each and other and upon the sentence on Charge 1.
On Charge 5, trafficking in cannabis, you are sentenced to be imprisoned for six months.
On Charge 6, trafficking in methylamphetamine, you are sentenced to be imprisoned for 12 months.
On Charge 7, trafficking 1,4-butanediol, you are sentenced to be imprisoned for 14 days.
I order that three months of the sentence imposed on Charge 5 and nine months of the sentence imposed on Charge 6 be served cumulatively upon each other and the other sentences imposed this day.
On each of the charges of culpable driving you licence will be disqualified and you will be disqualified from obtaining a further licence for a period of 10 years. In any event, on your release you will only able to be licensed after an order is made by a magistrate.
On Charge 8, possession of diazepam and with respect to the related summary offences of dealing with property suspected of being proceeds of crime and possession of ammunition, you are convicted and discharged.
That is a total effective sentence of 22 years, and I fix a period of 18 years and six months before you will be eligible before parole. I have fixed a period of three and a half years on which you might be on parole as best suiting your need and the needs of the community.
I declare that you have served 357 days by way of pre-sentence detention.
I indicate that pursuant to s.6AAA of the Sentencing Act 1991, that had it not been for your plea of guilty, I would have sentenced you to have been imprisoned for 25 years with a period of 21 years and six months before you would have been eligible for parole.
I direct that the above declaration and indication be entered in the records of the court.
Would you remove the prisoner please.
Would you adjourn the court sine die please.

[2021] VSC 182

14 April 2021