R v Gerard De Groot [2016] NSWDC 93

District Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Gerard De Groot [2016] NSWDC 93 Hearing dates: 19 May 2016 Decision date: 27 May 2016 Jurisdiction: Criminal Before: Mahony SC DCJ Decision: Full time custodial sentence. For orders see [76] – [79] Catchwords: Dangerous driving causing death Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 Cases Cited: Barnett v R [2014] NSWCCA 296 R v Whyte [2002] NSWCCA 343 Category: Sentence Parties: Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Gerard De Groot (Offender) Representation: Solicitor: G Gaynor (Crown) Counsel: G Hoare (Offender) File Number(s): 15/179811 Publication restriction: Nil

REMARKS ON SENTENCE 1. The offender was committed for sentence on 14 January 2016 from Yass Local Court. He had pleaded guilty to an offence pursuant to s 52A(1)(c) of the Crimes Act 1900 of dangerous driving occasioning death, which offence occurred on 11 March 2015 at Yass. 2. In addition, the offender had pleaded guilty to the following matters on a Section 166 Certificate: 1. Sequence 2 – Negligent driving occasioning death. This back‑up charge is to be withdrawn on the following sentence. 2. Sequence 3 – Drive whilst there was present in his blood a proscribed illicit drug, to wit, cannabis and methylamphetamine. The maximum penalty for that offence is a fine of $1,100.00.

Circumstances of the offending 1. The Crown bundle, (Exhibit A), included a statement of Agreed Facts. The offender was born on 14 March 1969 and is now 47 years of age. In March 2015, he had held a heavy vehicle driver's licence for approximately 23 years, and had worked for that period of time driving prime movers. As at March 2015, he had five years' experience driving B-double trailer combinations. 2. At 10.30am on Wednesday 11 March 2015, the offender collected a prime mover in Yass and drove that vehicle to the service centre adjacent to the Hume Highway, outside Yass. He there hooked up two trailers, and having conducted a safety check at approximately 11.05am, he left the service centre and was driving in a generally northerly direction on the Hume Highway, Yass, towards Sydney. The highway is a duel lane roadway of concrete construction. The conditions were fine and the roadway dry, with good visibility. At the beginning of an uphill grade, at a locality known as Manton, two vehicles had stopped on the left hand side of the north-bound carriageway. At that point, the highway had a minimal road shoulder, and as a result, both vehicles protruded across the fog line, and into Lane 1 of the highway. 3. The first vehicle had been driven by Mr Francis Paterson (the deceased). He was aged 83. He was standing beside the vehicle stopped behind him, and was talking to relatives through the driver's window. 4. As the offender's vehicle approached the two vehicles, he had 200 metres clear vision of them. The vehicles protruded some 50cm into lane 1 of the highway. 5. The Agreed Facts state that the offender did not take evasive action, and the front nearside bullbar of the prime mover struck the rear offside of the rear vehicle, pushing it forward and to the left, into the rear of the front vehicle. The prime mover struck the deceased, inflicting fatal injuries. It came to a stop some 100 metres north of the two vehicles. 6. The offender was interviewed on 23 March 2015. He advised in that interview that he did not brake prior to the collision, that he only had 60-80 metres visibility before he collided with the vehicle, and he had pulled the steering wheel hard to the right after he collided with the first car. The offender advised that he was familiar with the controls of the heavy vehicle that he was driving, having driven it on many occasions. He was also very familiar with the Hume Highway, and was not fatigued. When asked whether there was anything distracting him from his driving, he said that he was not distracted at all. 7. Inquiries were made as to the use of the offender's mobile phone service, which established that, sometime prior to the collision, which occurred at 11:15:07 am, the offender had been using his mobile phone. The Crown made the following concessions at the sentence hearing: 1. There was no suggestion that the offender was using his mobile phone at the time of the offence, and 2. To the extent that the Statement of Facts indicate that there was methylamphetamine in the offender's blood at the time of the offending, this did not play any part in the driving of the vehicle itself. 1. There was no evidence of braking by the offender prior to the collision, and no apparent reason for his failure to have seen the victim and the vehicles prior to the collision, other than inattention or distraction.