District Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: R v Meers [2021] NSWDC 352 Hearing dates: 12 February 2021; 25 March 2021; 30 March 2021 Date of orders: 30 March 2021 Decision date: 30 March 2021 Jurisdiction: Criminal Before: M L Williams SC DCJ Decision: An aggregate term of imprisonment of four years and nine months, with a non-parole period of two years and six months: at [51]. Catchwords: CRIME — Driving offences — Dangerous driving occasioning death SENTENCING — Aggravating factors — Breach of conditional liberty — Substantial harm, injury, loss or damage SENTENCING — Mitigating factors — Plea of guilty — Remorse SENTENCING — Penalties — Imprisonment SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Character of offence — Circumstances of offence — Deterrence — General principles — Moral culpability — Objective seriousness — Purposes of sentencing SENTENCING — Subjective considerations on sentence — Aboriginal offenders — Drug addiction — Mental illness — Special circumstances Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 Road Transport Act 2013 Cases Cited: Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571 R v El-Seidi [2020] NSWDC 375 R v Errington (2005) 157 A Crim R 553 R v Jurisic (1998) 45 NSWLR 209 R v Manok [2017] NSWCCA 232 R v Musumeci (unreported, NSW Court of Criminal Appeal, CJ at CL Hunt, 30 October 1997) R v Pullen [2018] NSWCCA 264 R v Qutami (2001) 127 A Crim R 369 R v Whyte [2002] NSWCCA 343 Category: Sentence Parties: Regina (Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions) Blake Meers (Offender) Representation: Ms N Keay (Crown Prosecutor) Mr J Moffet (Counsel for the offender) File Number(s): 2019/378125 Judgment 1. The loss of any life on the road has tragic consequences for the family and friends of the victim and also has often very serious and long lasting consequences for the offender and the offender's family. In addition to recognising those consequences, the sentencing judge must take into account the purposes of sentencing under s 3A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 which include ensuring that the offender is adequately punished for the offence; preventing crime by deterring the offender and others from committing similar offences; protecting the community from the offender; promoting the rehabilitation of the offender; making the offender accountable for his actions; denouncing his conduct and recognising the harm done to the victim of the crime and the community. 2. In matters such as this judges are often asked to perform a difficult task because no life can ever be equated with a period of imprisonment and no prison term can return a loved one and a life should never be measured simply by the punishment meted out to an offender. No sentence imposed here today could ever restore Trevor Picker to his family or reverse the injuries done to other people involved in the accidents caused by the offender. No sentence or statement of regret or remorse will ever assuage the feelings of loss that the families will feel. 3. In the sentencing process moral culpability is the central inquiry with regard to the objective circumstances of the offence. A sentencing judge must make a clear finding of where on the continuum of criminality the moral culpability of the offender lies. An offender's prior driving record is to be ignored when assessing the objective seriousness of the offence but his record is relevant to determining where a sentence should lie within the boundary set by the objective circumstances of the offence but it cannot be given such weight as to lead to the imposition of a penalty which is disproportionate to the gravity of the offence. A prior record is relevant to issues of personal and general deterrence. The commission of prior driving offences may be indicative of an attitude of disobedience towards the law and require increased weight to be given to retribution and deterrence. 4. The usual rule that general deterrence applies with less force to the sentencing of young offenders does not apply to dangerous driving offences because there is a prevalence of these offences among young drivers and the courts have a duty to seek to deter this behaviour. The fact that young men may perceive themselves to be bulletproof is a significant reason for general deterrence to be a prominent factor in dangerous driving cases. Inexperience and immaturity cannot operate as mitigating factors where an offender commits grave driving offences with fatal consequences. 5. As the court said in R v Jurisic (1998) 45 NSWLR 209, citing R v Musumeci (unreported, NSW Court of Criminal Appeal, CJ at CL Hunt, 30 October 1997): "1. The legislature has always placed a premium upon human life and the taking of a human life by driving a motor vehicle dangerously is to be regarded as a crime of some seriousness. 2. The real substance of the offence is not just the dangerous driving; it is the dangerous driving in association with the taking of a human life. … 5. So far as youthful offenders of good character who are guilty of dangerous driving, therefore, the sentence must be seen to have a reasonable proportionality to the objective circumstances of the crime, and persuasive subjective circumstances must not lead to inadequate weight being given to those objective circumstances." 1. Against that background, I turn to sentence the 26 year old, Blake Robert Meers. He has pleaded guilty to the following offences: 1. Sequence 1, an offence of dangerous driving occasioning death to Trevor Picker, a 91 year old man contrary to s 52A(1)(c) of the Crimes Act 1900. This offence carries a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment with no standard non parole period. 2. Sequences 2, 3 & 4, three offences contrary to s 53 of the Crimes Act 1900 of causing bodily harm by misconduct while in charge of a motor vehicle. These offences have a maximum penalty of 2 years imprisonment with no standard non parole period. 3. On a s 166 certificate, sequence 5, of drive with an illicit drug present in blood, contrary to s 111(1)(a) of the Road Transport Act 2013. This offence has a maximum penalty of 20 penalty units. I intend to deal with this sequence pursuant to s 10A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, by recording a conviction and imposing no further penalty. 1. He is also to be called up for the breach of a conditional release order which was imposed on 30 October 2018 for a period of two years, for the offence of supply prohibited drug. I indicate that there will be no action taken on that call up. 2. Mr Meers has pleaded guilty at an early opportunity justifying a 25% discount on a term of imprisonment. It is conceded that a term of imprisonment is required in this case and it is unnecessary for me to consider any alternatives. 3. The agreed facts show that at about 4.50pm on Friday 7 June 2019 Mr Meers was the sole occupant of a 1998 Nissan Patrol 4WD wagon. He was a holder of a provisional P1 license, first issued in June 2014. His licence was subsequently suspended on 28 May 2015, again on 27 July 2017. His licence was reissued on 28 March 2018. 4. The relevant events occurred at about 4.50pm on Junction Point Road at Binda which runs in a north to south direction between Binda and Tuena, north of Crookwell. The speed limit at that point is 100 km/h, the road is classified as a main road and it consists of one lane of traffic in each direction separated by a single broken white painted line. The weather conditions were fine, the bitumen was dry and in good condition. The incident occurred on a straight and level section of the road. On the northern side of the collision there was a downhill grade for south bound traffic. There were no potholes or uneven surfaces and there were no contaminants on the surface leading up to the collision from either direction. 5. The offender was driving in a southerly direction past the intersection of Bigga Road and at the same time there were three vehicles travelling in close proximity to each other in a northerly direction. The first in line was a white Subaru driven by Kathleen Hunt, aged 64. The second was a grey Subaru Tribeca driven by Mr Trevor Picker who was also the sole occupant, and the third vehicle was a Toyota Kluger driven by Nabil Butros, aged 69, and his 57-year-old wife Ada was seated in the passenger seat. 6. The offender completed the downhill grade of the road after which he caused his vehicle to cross the broken centre dividing line and enter the northbound traffic lane. He struck the offside of the Subaru driven by Kathleen Hunt causing it to rotate in a clockwise direction and commence rolling onto the near side of the vehicle before coming to rest facing in a southerly direction. It caused significant damage to the vehicle. He continued travelling in the northbound traffic lane and impacted heavily with Mr Picker's Subaru causing the Subaru to rotate in an anticlockwise direction, coming to rest facing an easterly direction across both lanes of traffic. 7. The impact caused Mr Meers' vehicle to deflect to the right leaving the roadway onto the western shoulder and rolling onto the offside of the vehicle sustaining significant damage. The bonnet and bull bar were forced rearwards and the radiator was destroyed, the windscreen was smashed. The Subaru sustained catastrophic damage to the front of the car. In order to avoid a collision with the Subaru, Nabil Butros swerved his Toyota on to the left to the left onto the western shoulder and collided with a tree and then with the offender's Nissan. The Kluger also sustained significant damage. 8. Following the collision Kathleen Hunt and Nabil and Ada Butros were able to extract themselves from their cars with the assistance of witnesses who had stopped. Trevor Picker was conscious but remained trapped in his vehicle. His nose was bleeding heavily and he was complaining of severe abdominal pain. 9. A fleet of emergency services vehicles arrived including a number of police, fire and rescue, NSW Rural Fire Service, ambulances and two rescue helicopters. The road was closed for about ten hours in both directions. 10. When paramedics arrived Trevor Picker was able to be removed from the car but, went into cardiac arrest. The paramedics performed cardiopulmonary resuscitation for about 30 minutes, but he was not able to be revived and he died at the scene. 11. At this time his son Murray Picker arrived and identified his father to the police. The injuries that sustained Trevor included abdominal injuries, with a large haemorrhage of the abdominal cavity caused by tearing of the small tissues of the small bowel; a minor head injury; a bruised and swollen nose and abrasions; a chest injury with fractured ribs; fracture of the L4 vertebrae; small right pneumothorax; left upper lung lobe contusion and bruising of the anterior trunk. 12. Kathleen Hunt suffered left breast tenderness, left shoulder tenderness. She required a chest x-ray and was discharged from hospital that night. Nabil Butros was taken by ambulance to Goulburn Hospital suffering from traumatic chest pain with a suspected heart attack and was discharged at 2pm the following day. Ada Butros was taken by rescue helicopter to Canberra Hospital where she underwent x-rays of her right thumb, chest ultrasound and CT and she was discharged at 2pm the next day. 13. The offender was taken by helicopter to Canberra Hospital. A blood sample was obtained at 8.15pm revealing the presence of THC at a level of 3 mg/ml, a forensic pharmacologist was unable to form a firm opinion that at the time of driving the offender was substantially impaired by any drug. The offender was treated for a fractured left ankle, fractured left wrist, and fractured sternum. 14. At the scene of the collision the offender was observed being quite agitated and was yelling "who caused this, what the fuck happened here" on a number of occasions. Witnesses were concerned about his level of aggression. In the hour leading up to the collision his car had been seen by other drivers to be driving in an erratic manner, failing to maintain a constant speed, swerving across and into the opposing lane of traffic, swerving onto the shoulder of the road and impacting with a number of Armco railings. 15. A witness that was travelling behind the offender in a northerly direction from Crookwell before the offender had turned around at Tuena and headed south recorded videos on his phone showing the offender driving in an erratic manner, namely crossing over the double centre lines while navigating a right hand bend, and veering off the road narrowly avoiding colliding with the guidepost on two occasions. 16. Another witness, Mr Keely, also noticed an oncoming car have to pull off the road to avoid a collision with the offender. He also saw the offender collide with a guardrail on the left hand side while failing to navigate a bend. His vehicle kicked up and the offender swerved aggressively to the right and went around the next bend on the wrong side of the road. A couple of kilometres later the offender was seen driving on a straight portion of road with a number of dips and Keely observed him to be driving on the wrong side of the road at this time. As they approached the turn off to Tuena three cars were approaching the oncoming lane of traffic. The offender moved to the left hand side then drifted back to the right crossing the white lines and almost impacting the third car, he then swerved back onto the left side. Mr Keely also observed his speed to be constantly changing, slowing down to 50 km/h at some point, then speeding up to 100 km/h. He also failed to slow down at corners, driving at dangerous speeds for the conditions. 17. He was observed to pull into a driveway on the left hand side of the road just before Tuena on the opposite side of the car a maroon vehicle was attempting to pull into the same driveway. Keely saw both vehicles stop in the driveway before conducting U-turns and then the offender drove back in the opposite direction towards Crookwell. 18. Police obtained a record of the call charge of the offender's phone number, and over objection I admitted that material as showing a significant quantity of connections to that phone number, both incoming and outgoing, between 4.40pm and 4.50pm on 27 separate occasions. The last activity originating from the phone of the accused was at 16:50:43, only 14 seconds before the first call to triple-0 was made by Sue Collins, one of the witnesses who stopped. 19. The offender was arrested at Goulburn Police Station on 1 December 2019. He was offered the opportunity to speak to a lawyer from the Aboriginal Legal Service following which he refused the opportunity to participate in an interview. Police asked the offender to provide particulars of the collision, including an explanation of the circumstances of the crash pursuant to rule 287 of the Road Rules 2014, the offender said that he couldn't recall the collision, and his last memory was finishing work in Goulburn earlier in the day and then waking up in an ambulance. He told police he'd smoked cannabis on the weekend before some five to six days prior to the collision. 20. His record includes, fines for possessing prohibited drug and not displaying P-plates in 2016; further possession of drugs dealt with by a fine in 2017 and a section 9 bond. The s 9 bond was called up and led to a conditional release order for two years expiring 29 October 2020. There were further possess drug matters dealt with by fines or bonds in 2013 and 2015; a charge of driving while there was an illicit drug present in his blood in 2015 dealt with by a section 10 bond, and in September 2018 a further matter of possess prohibited drug dealt with by a fine. 21. He has served no time in custody as a result of this offence or any other offence, and I have been provided in the Crown brief with facts in relation to the earlier matters in July 2017 and December 2015. 22. The subjective case put on behalf of the offender comprises some records with Canberra Hospital and reports from his treating general practitioner Dr Kovats of The Health Care Centre Crookwell. The matter was listed for sentence in the February sittings of the Goulburn District Court, but the matter was adjourned on the application of Mr Moffat, counsel for the offender, who wished to explore the possibility of the offender having an acquired brain injury as a result of injuries sustained in the collision. 23. An affidavit of Mr Dean Rutherford, the managing solicitor of the Aboriginal Legal Service in Canberra, explains the attempts that were made to obtain records from Canberra Hospital in relation to this issue, but ultimately nothing has emerged which suggests that any brain injury was sustained in this collision. 24. In Dr Kovats' initial referral dated 14 January 2020 Mr Peter Barnett at the Healthcare Centre in Crookwell. the referral notes that he has pre-morbid issues of anger and a short fuse. He came to Crookwell after living in Manly. He has been diagnosed with learning difficulties and was educated in a special class at Campbelltown Central School. He had plans to move to Western Australia but life had taken another turn following be charged with offences arising out of this accident. He was being medicated at that stage with Lexapro, Panadeine and Somac following a diagnosis of reactive depression and anxiety. 25. An updated report from Dr Kovats last week notes that over the six months following the collision the offender had been seen by a number of groups including Dr Kovats as the treating doctor, Kellie from Goulburn Community Corrections, Libby Newcombe from Pathways and he had been referred for psychological support on two occasions. He was complaining of flashbacks and insomnia in November 2019 when Dr Kovats thought he was developing symptoms consistent with post-traumatic stress disorder and untreated adult ADHD syndrome. After being charged with the offences he presented at Crookwell Hospital with an acute stress reaction and the diagnosis of anxiety and reactive depression was made. 26. He was again referred for psychological support but Peter Barnett was no longer available as Mr Meers had not engaged on the two previous referrals. He was referred to an online psychiatrist, Dr Mustac, who made a diagnosis after investigations and testing he was diagnosed with of adult attention deficit disorder. Dr Kovats says that he managed to get through school with poor literacy, a behaviour disorder, illicit drug use and untreated ADHD, all apparent in retrospect before his motor vehicle accident. She says no organic brain injury was evident or diagnosed after the motor vehicle accident. He engaged with a psychologist, Mary Silk up until August 2020 and on last consultation on 23 February 2021 he was understandably depressed and anxious and developing panic attacks about his pending incarceration. His antidepressant medication was increased and prescriptions were provided for the future and his prescriptions include medication for ADHD, antidepressant and anti-reflux medication. 27. The discharge records of Canberra Hospital note retrograde amnesia which supports his assertion to police that he has no memory of the relevant events. A report from Elizabeth Newcombe, a case manager at Pathways in Goulburn notes that he first approached them in January 2020 for support around his cannabis use. He was requesting support to stop smoking cannabis as he realised he was using it to mask the pain of his situation and to help him sleep. She amplifies a little on his background noting that he was able to go to TAFE and graduated in welding. He got a job, but then drugs came into his life. After her divorce his mother came to live in Crookwell and he and his girlfriend came with her. He got a job in Goulburn. He said that on the day of the offence he'd had a fight with his boss and got into his car and drove through Crookwell and when he realised he'd gone too far he turned around and it was on his way back that the offence occurred. 28. She formulated a treatment plan including consultations with Mary Silk, a psychologist to work on his anger issues. He had eight sessions with Ms Silk. She said that he had kept himself occupied during the COVID lockdown doing a lot of work for his on his mother's property and has been visiting his father on the south coast where his father has a motel. Ms Newcombe has seen the offender some 26 times including with weekly telephone contact, his work has centred on keeping him emotionally stable and targeted on relapse prevention. As Ms Newcombe says, "This is a terrible tragedy all round particularly for the family of the deceased and for this young man who because of bad judgement will live with this all his life. In the time I have known Mr Meers he constantly expresses his guilt and remorse and expresses an overwhelming sadness for what his actions have done. He has worked hard to make significant changes in his life and he has a loving partner and a family who love him and feels great remorse at what he has put them through." 1. I accept his expressions of remorse to Ms Newcombe and I accept as Mr Rutherford told the court today that after Mr Murray Picker, the son of Trevor Picker had read a victim's impact statement when the matter was last before the court, the offender approached him and offered his remorse and apologies which was accepted by Mr Murray Picker. 2. I turn to the question of the assessment of the objective seriousness and the principles guiding the imposition of a sentence. I have been greatly assisted by comprehensive written submissions prepared by the Crown Prosecutor and by Mr Moffat of counsel. There is little in dispute as to the way in which the matter should be considered. Mr Moffat accepts the principles as summarised by the Crown. Driving a motor vehicle dangerously causing death is a serious crime and the substance of the offence is that dangerous driving in association with the taking of a human life: R v Musumeci (unreported, NSW Court of Criminal Appeal, 30 October 1997) As I indicated earlier, general deterrence is usually given primacy over subjective considerations personal to the offender as the court noted recently in R v Pullen [2018] NSWCCA 264 (citing R v Manok [2017] NSWCCA 232, at [79] ) at [44] , "That is because of the prevalence of the activity of driving, and the terrible consequences that can flow from a failure by a driver in the management of a motor vehicle. Almost every adult in our community drives; any driver can commit an offence of dangerous driving, manifesting in death or severe injury. It is important that all drivers be deterred from driving dangerously by the sentences imposed on those who transgress." 1. The judgement of the court in R v Whyte [2002] NSWCCA 343 provides guidance for sentencing in this type of offence. The guideline is that where offender's moral culpability is high a full-time sentence of less than three years in the case of death is generally inappropriate. While the court is required to make an assessment of the offender's moral culpability, dangerous driving offences do not divide between cases of momentary inattention and abandonment of responsibility: R v Errington (2005) 157 A Crim R 553. 2. The factors relevant to assessing the relative seriousness of an offence of driving in a manner dangerous as set out in R v Whyte and include; 1. the extent and nature of the injuries or the death involved; 2. the number of people put at risk; 3. the degree of speed; 4. the degree of intoxication or substance use abuse; 5. erratic or aggressive driving; 6. competitive driving or showing off; 7. the length of the journey during which others were exposed to risk; 8. ignoring of warnings; 9. escaping police pursuit; 10. degree of sleep deprivation; 11. failing to stop. 1. Here the Crown submits that the offender's moral culpability is high because 1. The offender's driving caused the death of one person and actual bodily harm to three other road users. 2. The offender's car was observed to travel out of his lane and into the path of oncoming vehicles. 3. The offender collided with three cars who were travelling in the opposite lane. He took no evasive action after the first collision and continued to collide with two more cars travelling in the opposite direction. 4. The offending occurred in favourable driving conditions. 5. The offender was driving with an illicit drug in his system although as I have indicated there was no indication that that was affecting his driving. 6. The offender was observed to be driving erratically in the period of about an hour before the collision as set out in the agreed facts and in the video files which were shown to the court. He was failing to maintain a constant speed and was at times driving at dangerous speeds, swerving across and into the opposing lane of traffic, swerving onto the shoulder of the road and colliding with the railings on at least two occasions. 7. The offender had travelled at least from his workplace in Goulburn through Crookwell and to Tuena before turning around and it was evident that he put a large number of road users at risk. 1. The court in R v Whyte also set out what was described as a typical case having common features including 1. Involving young offender, 2. of good character or with no or limited prior convictions, 3. causing death or permanent injury to a single person, 4. the victim is a stranger, 5. no or limited injury to the driver or the driver's intimates, 6. genuine remorse and 7. a plea of guilty of limited utilitarian value. 1. As I have indicated I accept his expressions of remorse. He has a prior record, he was on conditional liberty at the time of the offending for the supply a prohibited drug. He has a poor record of driving offences. 2. Mr Moffat accepts that the objective seriousness of the offending is mid-range and I accept the Crown's submission that this is a case where the offender's moral culpability is high and it is a case where primacy should be afforded to general deterrence. 3. The victim's impact statement read by Mr Murray Picker was accepted by Mr Moffat as being one spoken with compassion, conviction and love of a man who was taken from his family before his time and that the loss of Trevor Picker will continue to have a significant and forever lasting impact on his immediate family and community generally. Mr Moffat concedes that although there were no victim impact statements from those injured the court may nevertheless infer that the victims of his crimes have been affected by his conduct. 4. As to his subjective case Mr Moffat acknowledges that he is not a very young man and he has a reasonably lengthy criminal history, predominantly for drug and driving offences and that little leniency may be therefore afforded on that ground. 5. He acknowledges that the offending occurred while he was on conditional liberty. 6. He is an Aboriginal man who is essentially illiterate, despite managing to stumble his way through secondary education to TAFE. Given his serious drug misuse and abuse he has found it difficult to maintain employment. The offender observed the relationship between his parents collapse, which he puts down to significant alcohol abuse by his father. There is a history of psychological and physical characteristics, specifically that the offender himself was significantly injured in the collision and while there is clear evidence of remorse, it cannot be said that the offending was out of character as is conceded by Mr Moffat. 7. He has shown insight into his drug problem by seeking help even though this came after the commission of the offence. There is some prospect and hope of rehabilitation although it must be accepted that until he takes control of his drug dependencies his prospects of rehabilitation may be considered guarded. 8. The Crown does not contest a finding of special circumstances on the basis of his relative youth, that this will be his first time in custody, the Bugmy (Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571) considerations arising out of childhood disadvantage and the need for an extended period of supervision so that rehabilitation from his drug use can be implemented. 9. The limited histories upon which the subjective submissions were based are treated with an appropriate degree of caution as set out in cases such as R v Qutami (2001) 127 A Crim R 369, but given the source of the history in the medical reports I am prepared to take them as a reasonable basis upon which to make the conclusions that I have as to his subjective case. 10. The parties have made brief submissions as to a 24-page document which is MFI 1, being a compilation by the Crown of some comparable cases referred to in the matter of R v El-Seidi [2020] NSWDC 375 and I have taken into account those cases and the submissions of Mr Rutherford and the Crown in relation to the comparability of various cases. 11. Ultimately of course as I have indicated the objective in circumstances the objective and subjective circumstances of this case are the basis upon which the sentence proceeds and the orders that I will make are: 1. The offender is convicted of each offence. 2. Taking into account a discount of 25% for the pleas of guilty the indicative sentences are: 1. Sequence 1 - three years and nine months; 2. Sequence 2 – 13 months 3. Sequence 3 – 13 months 4. Sequence 4 – 13 months 1. I impose an aggregate sentence of imprisonment of four years and nine months commencing on 30 March 2021. 2. I impose a non-parole period of two years and six months expiring 29 September 2023. 3. I find special circumstances. 4. In relation to sequence 5, pursuant to section 10A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 the offender is convicted and no further penalty will be imposed. 5. Sequences 6 and 7 are withdrawn. 6. In relation to the call-up of a community corrections order, the breach is proven and I take no action. 1. KEAY: Your Honour will need to impose a disqualification period in relation to sequence 1. 2. HIS HONOUR: And what's the - is there an automatic? 3. KEAY: I think the automatic one is three years which would start at the end of his non-parole period. 4. HIS HONOUR: And is there a minimum period? 5. KEAY: I think it's 12 months. 6. HIS HONOUR: It's 12 months isn't it? 7. KEAY: Yes. It's a first major offence. 8. HIS HONOUR: Mr Rutherford? 9. RUTHERFORD: I'm not entirely sure of that. I thought it was three down to one. 10. HIS HONOUR: Yes. I think that's agreed, the automatic is three years' disqualification. 11. RUTHERFORD: Reducible to the one. 12. HIS HONOUR: From the date of his release. 13. RUTHERFORD: From the date of release. 14. HIS HONOUR: But the minimum is 12 months. 15. RUTHERFORD: Yep. 16. HIS HONOUR: Is that right? 17. KEAY: He might have actually had his license taken from him, is that right? 18. OFFENDER: Yeah from when I got charged on 1 December. 19. KEAY: So he might have already suffered a period of disqualification but the Crown would say this isn't a case for the minimum period given the seriousness of the matter. 20. HIS HONOUR: So he hasn't been driving since December 2019. 21. KEAY: Since he was charged. 22. HIS HONOUR: Which is-- 23. KEAY: The police have the power to take his license from him. 24. HIS HONOUR: Which is almost 18 months. Or 15 months. 25. RUTHERFORD: That probably would be a reason to reduce to the-- 26. HIS HONOUR: Yes. I think - I think 18 months, 18 months would be appropriate Mr Rutherford. 27. RUTHERFORD: I wouldn't be heard against that your Honour. 28. HIS HONOUR: I impose a licence disqualification of 18 months which will commence on the date of his release. Note – These extempore remarks were revised without access to the court file. ********** Amendments 26 October 2022 - Correct typographical error in "Parties" on coversheet Update catchwords on coversheet DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 26 October 2022