DPP v Beg [2025] VCC 527

1. Thompsons Road runs in an approximate east-west direction and is a two-way bitumen road, which at the time of the collision, was in good condition. The opposing travel lanes are separated by a raised traffic island. It is a designated 80km/h zone.
2. The intersection of Thompsons Road and Wheelers Park drive is a T-intersection. There is a petrol station on the north-west corner and the area is well-lit by street lights.
3. Travelling west along Thompsons Road, there are an additional two lanes to the right of the two lanes going straight to allow vehicles to make a right- hand turn into Wheelers Park Drive. The right-hand turning lanes are controlled by traffic control signals.
4. Travelling east along Thompsons Road, there is a lane on each side of the two lanes going straight. The lane to the left is a dedicated left-hand turning lane into Wheelers Park Drive, controlled by a Give Way sign. The lane to the right is a dedicated u-turn lane for vehicles wanting to travel west along Thompsons Road
5. At the time of the collision weather conditions were clear, the road was dry, the traffic was light and it was dark, with the streetlights illuminated.
6. CCTV footage was obtained from the petrol station. It shows the BMW was travelling east along Thompsons Road and overtook a vehicle on the right-hand side at speed.
7. You approached the intersection with your headlights and right turn indicator on. The traffic control signal at the intersection was displaying a green traffic control signal for vehicles travelling straight and a red traffic control signal for vehicles conducting a right-hand turn. You entered the intersection against the red traffic control signal and crossed into the eastbound lanes. The Subaru was in the second from the right dedicated turning lane.
8. At the time the Subaru entered the intersection, the traffic control signal had been red for approximately 42 seconds.
9. The victim was travelling in the left-hand lane of the two lanes travelling straight. He had a green traffic control signal prior to entering the intersection and an amber traffic control signal at the time of entering the intersection.
10. Witness Satyam Arora had been travelling in his van east along Thompsons Road in the right-hand lane. Mr Arora said that 'before crossing the intersection I saw a white car start turning across the intersection. I honked my horn and he did not stop. I narrowly missed him. The next thing I heard was a loud bang just after I crossed the green light. Mr Arora was forced to apply his brakes to avoid a collision.
11. The victim braked but was unable to avoid driving into the passenger side of the Subaru. He was thrown off the motorcycle and went through the closed rear passenger window of the Subaru, where he was located by witnesses and paramedics.
12. Detective Sergeant (DS) Robert Hay of the Collision Reconstruction and Mechanical Investigation Unit opined that:

(a) The Subaru travelling west on Thompsons Road had disobeyed the red traffic control light to turn right at the intersection of Thompsons Road and Wheelers Park Drive, into the path of the van and motorcycle travelling east on Thompsons Road;

(b) The Subaru entered the intersection at a speed of 36 km/hr without any stopping at the stop line for the intersection and whilst the traffic control signal for the east bound traffic (for BMW) was green and crossed the travel path of the motorcycle and the van;

(c) The motorcycle and van were travelling East on the Thompsons Road in lanes parallel to each other and entered the intersection at an amber light. The rider of the motorcycle, in response to the Subaru crossing its path, applied emergency braking, leading to the motorcycle's rear tyre to skid across the road surface;

(d) The motorcycle at commencement of the skid mark was travelling at the speed range of 92 to 111km/hr;

(e) The service brake status was recorded as 'on' for the interval of 5.0 seconds and 2.5 seconds prior to crash and from 2.0 seconds onwards the service brake was recorded 'off'. Based on the recorded speed of the Subaru a minimum braking input was supplied to the Subaru during the whole of the pre-crash recording interval; and

(f) The Subaru was travelling at 31 - 33km/h at the time of impact.

1. At approximately 11pm that evening, Detective Acting Sergeant (DASGT) David Swankie, DASGT Tony Gentile, Detective Senior Constable (DSC) Michael Fowler and DSC Kyllee Edia from the Major Collision Investigation Unit attended the collision scene.
2. The scene was videoed, photographed and scanned using a Rigel VZ-400I device.

1. SC Nicholas Rhall and Constable Allison Gamble were the first officers to attend the collision scene. SC Rhall cautioned you.
2. You were transported to Casey Hospital for a blood sample to be taken. While at the hospital, you were placed under arrest by SC Sean Kelleher. You were taken to Cranbourne Police Station to be interviewed and a recorded interview was commenced at 12.48am on 19 April 2023.
3. In the interview, you stated:

Well, at this moment, given the time and the traumatic event, I don't really want to get into what I can recall right now... I'm really shocked by what happened. I'm still trying to process it, find out, like, just understand and also recall and just - well, I just - I'm in a bit of an, a bit of a shocked state. And I'm not sure how to- I don't want to recall right now.

1. You were then asked a few other questions that were not related to the incident and were released without charge.
2. Charges were filed on 27 February 2024.

1. The offence of dangerous driving causing death is, by its nature, a serious offence as it involves the death of a human being. The seriousness of the offence is also reflected in the maximum penalty set by Parliament, being 10 years imprisonment and its classification as a Category 2 offence.
2. As noted, the arrow you turned against had been red for 42 seconds. The CCTV footage indicates that you had your right indicator on for at least 8 seconds, with the collision occurring some 3 seconds after you crossed the solid white line. Thus, for a period of at least 8 seconds you were inattentive to the red traffic arrow, which was clearly visible to you. Further, as pointed out during the sentence indication hearing, even if you did not pay attention to the red arrow, you also did not give way to the oncoming traffic further confirming your prolonged inattention. This was a routine trip in an area close to your home and you were familiar with the intersection and the operation of the lights.
3. In the circumstances Ms French, who appeared on behalf of the Director of Public Prosecutions, submitted that the objective gravity of the offending and your moral culpability, should be assessed as falling at 'the high end of the low range'.
4. Dr Boas who appeared on your behalf submitted that as many of the aggravating features as described in cases such as DPP v Neethling[1] are absent, such as alcohol or substance use, excessive speeding, competitive driving or use of a mobile phone, in the circumstances your moral culpability is at the 'very low end of the spectrum'. As I understand the submission Dr Boas was also submitting that the gravity of your conduct should also be viewed as being at the low end.
5. As noted in Director of Public Prosecutions v Weybury, terms such as 'the high end of the low range' or 'very low end of the spectrum' can be problematic when assessing where offending sits between the least serious example to the worst category.[2] While I accept that there is a lack of aggravating features, for reasons that are not explained, the evidence reveals that your conduct is an example of a period of prolonged inattention. In those circumstances in my view, your offending and your moral culpability do not fall in the lowest category, where for example, the offending was as a result of momentary inattention. That said, in my view, given the lack of other aggravating features, your offending still falls below a mid range example.

1. Victim impact statements were tendered from four of the victim's family members which together express the profound and lasting impacts that the loss of the victim has had on his family. Collectively, these statements express the deep mental and emotional pain that has been endured by all family members.
2. The victim's mother, Marie Minerve details the anxiety she now feels when she passes a motorcycle or approaches the intersection where the accident occurred. She has been experiencing flashbacks and sleep difficulties as a result of her son's death and has been prescribed medication to assist her.
3. Eric Jeannot, one of the victim's uncles describes the pain and anger he has experienced knowing that his nephew will never have the opportunity to grow old, get married or pursue his dreams.
4. I have read and taken all these statements into account. To the family of the victim I make the following comment: there is nothing this Court can say or do that can address your unmeasurable grief and pain. The sentence I must impose can in no way be a measure of the worth of the life of Louis Minerve. Rather, the sentence I must impose is a reflection of a large number of factors which judges are required by law to take into account, only one of which is the impact on victims.

1. You are the youngest of four children, with your family comprising of one brother and two sisters.
2. You were born in Saudi Arabia and grew up in the eastern part of the country where your father was a teacher and academic at the King Fahd University. Your mother was at home throughout your childhood and dedicated herself to raising you and your siblings.
3. You describe your childhood as 'happy' and one where your family was 'stable and secure'. Your family are devout Muslims and you report that whilst your parents were strict in their disciplinary measures, you still had a significant amount of independence within the clear limits set by your parents. You have never consumed alcohol or used any drugs.
4. Both your parents are now advanced in age. Your father suffered a stroke five years ago and is non-verbal, your mother suffers from dementia. You report that you miss the communication you once shared with both of your parents.
5. You attended international school in Saudi Arabia where you excelled in your studies and experienced no social or behavioural issues. You report that you participated actively in sports, particularly soccer, which cemented you with a strong social circle of friends.
6. Upon completing secondary school you commenced studies in engineering at King Fahd University before transferring to a University in Malaysia where you completed a bachelor's degree in Information Technology. You returned to King Fahd University after winning a scholarship where you completed your master's degree.
7. In 2022 you moved to Australia on a student visa to undertake your doctoral studies in computer science and engineering. You were granted a scholarship through an industrial partnership which provides partial support for your fees and living expenses. You are now in the third year of your doctorate which is focused upon IT algorithms.
8. You display an extremely strong work ethic and have work multiple jobs concurrently as the family's sole earner. More specifically, you have been able to support yourself and your family throughout your work as a software engineer whilst simultaneously managing the strenuous academic workload of pursuing a doctoral degree. You express considerable anxiety about the potential impact that your matters will have upon your family's welfare and security.
9. You met your wife online in 2021 and you began dating long distance for a year before moving to Australia for her in 2022. You married in 2022 and together you share a one year old son. Your wife also has a seven year old son to a previous relationship who you have assumed responsibility for.
10. You acknowledge that your marriage has suffered as a result of your offending. Your wife's family lives in Western Australia, and you have had very little support from your extended family. Despite your challenges, your wife has remained supportive throughout your court matters.
11. Turning now to your mental health. A psychological report of Patrick Newton dated 11 December 2024 was tendered on the plea and details that prior to your offending you had only experienced mild anxiety, principally in response to work-related stressors. Mr Newton details that in the immediate aftermath of the collision you began experiencing peri-traumatic symptoms commonplace with a diagnosis of PTSD.
12. It is specified that your experience of the crash itself was horrifying and dominated by intense fear and confusion. You have continued to suffer from significant anxiety, specifically intrusive recollections of the collision involving hyper-arousal and dissociation. Mr Newton indicates that you illustrate a clear experience of 'de-personalisation' in which you have gained a sense of being 'alienated and cut off from your own experiences'. These experiences are deeply distressing and point to an intense traumatic response.
13. Mr Newton opines that your symptoms are sufficiently severe and meet the clinical criteria for PTSD which persists at a moderate level of severity despite engagement with psychological treatment. Further, he indicates that following your sentence it is probable that your mental state will be susceptible to further deterioration.
14. In addition to your anxiety-related symptoms, Mr Newton opines that your mental state is characterised by the typical emotional, physical and behavioural symptoms of depression. You are particularly concerned for your family's welfare and view your life direction in a pessimistic way. However, Mr Newton is also of the view that whilst your depressive symptoms cause you noteworthy distress, they are not sufficiently intense enough to warrant the diagnosis of a co-morbid depressive disorder.
15. Regarding your offending behaviour, Mr Newton explains that you are deeply remorseful in relation to the death of the victim and demonstrate a deep recognition that nothing you do can restore the victims life. You have struggled to come to terms with your offending behaviour and feel incapable of processing it rationally.
16. A number of character references were tendered on the plea which together form a united view that you consistently demonstrate yourself as a hard working person of strong moral character. You are described as a dedicated, caring and proud family man, with a strong devotion to your faith. I have read and taken these references into account.

1. Dr Boas submitted that there a number of matters to be given weight in mitigation. First is your plea of guilty. This matter resolved following a sentence indication before me, although as noted at the commencement of the hearing, no viable defence was articulated. Nonetheless the plea is an early plea which has saved the time and expense of a trial and significantly, saved the victim's family from further trauma as the matter proceeded through the criminal justice system.
2. Over and above your plea of guilty, it was submitted that you have demonstrated genuine remorse. In his report, Mr Newton notes:

Mr Beg is deeply remorseful with regard to the death of the motorcyclist. As noted above, he continues to struggle to come to terms with this eventuality and feels incapable of processing it rationally. In particular, Mr Beg's recognition that, no matter what he now does, how he might expiate his guilt or what punishment he might face, nothing can restore the deceased man to life, reinforces his sense of powerlessness, pessimism and alienation from society more generally.

1. You also expressed your remorse to the writer a of a community corrections report. In the circumstances I accept that you have acknowledged responsibility for your conduct and that you have shown genuine remorse.
2. You have developed PTSD which Mr Newton states is a clear traumatic response to the collision. You also suffer significant anxiety. Mr Newton notes the core features of your PTSD which include; intrusive recollections of the collision, ongoing symptoms of hyper arousal, and dissociation. As a result of your psychological conditions, it was submitted that Verdins principles 5 and 6 have application. Mr Newton is of the view that specific trauma related psychological intervention would be difficult, if not impossible to arrange in the custodial environment making any prison sentence more burdensome for you. Further, that if you were to receive a term of imprisonment, you would experience a significant deterioration in your anxiety and depression. In the circumstances I accept that Verdins principles 5 and 6 are enlivened and should carry weight in the sentencing discretion.
3. The collision occurred on 18 April 2023. Thus it has taken some two years to bring the matter to a conclusion. As such it was submitted that delay is a matter to be taken into account. Given your significant psychological reaction as a result of the collision, I accept that as this matter has progressed through the criminal justice system, it has been a significant burden for you to carry. As such I take into account the principle of delay.
4. You are in Australia on a student visa and you are substantially progressed through your doctoral studies. You are settled here with you wife and young child. It was submitted that the principles as recognised in cases such as Guden v The Queen[3] have application. First that the prospect of deportation is a proper matter for consideration in determining sentence. Secondly, the fact that you will serve your time with the risk of deportation, may make the burden of imprisonment greater. In the circumstances I accept that these are matters to be taken into account.
5. Turning to your prospects of rehabilitation. You come before the court with no prior criminal history and you do not have any issues to grapple with such as alcohol or drugs. As observed by Mr Newton, you are of superior intelligence and you have excellent insight. Although you have had a psychological reaction to the consequences of your conduct, with effective treatment you will be able to move on with your life. You have a young child and a supportive family. In my view in the circumstances your prospects of rehabilitation are excellent.

1. Ms French submitted that general deterrence is the paramount sentencing consideration in cases such as this. This case is a clear reminder that when in control of a motor vehicle drivers must remain alert at all times, noting that inattention can result in very tragic consequences.
2. As you have pleaded guilty to a Category 2 offence, a term of imprisonment (without the option of a combination sentence) is mandatory unless an exception pursuant to s 5(2H) of the Sentencing Act 1991 ('Sentencing Act') is able to be established. You relied on s 5(2H)(c)(ii), that you have impaired mental functioning resulting in you being subject to substantially and materially greater burden of imprisonment and, s 5(2H)(e), that there are substantial and compelling circumstances that are exceptional and rare that justify not making an order under Division 2 of Part 3 - that is, not a sentence of imprisonment with a community correction order.
3. Without repeating the submissions on behalf of both parties, the prosecution conceded that it would be open to the court to find that the circumstances of this case, in combination, are substantial and compelling and exceptional and rare. Having considered the relevant matters, I am also of the view that in all the circumstances the exception pursuant to s 5(2H)(e), is able to be established. Nonetheless, having considered the relevant sentencing matters, including the need for general deterrence, in my view a term of imprisonment still must be imposed together with a community correction order.
4. I had you assessed for a community correction order and while you have been found unsuitable, the writer of the report also does not recommend any conditions other than the core conditions, primarily for the reason that you are a low risk of reoffending and that evidence based practice has found that minimising interventions is an effective way of maintaining a person's low risk. I accept that recommendation however, all community correction orders are punitive in nature and effectively hang over an offender's head, restricting liberty. In this instance, while special conditions are not necessary, the community correction order still forms part of the sentence I am imposing in combination with the term of imprisonment.

1. Mr Beg would you please stand.
2. Abdurrahman Beg, on Charge 1 dangerous driving causing death, you are convicted and sentenced to 6 months imprisonment as the prison component of a combination sentence pursuant to s 44 of the Sentencing Act.
3. Once you have completed the term of imprisonment you will be placed on a community correction order for a period of 12 months. The order will contain the standard conditions. In addition to the standard conditions you will also be subject to judicial monitoring.
4. Pursuant to s 6AAA of the Sentencing Act, if not for your plea of guilty, I would have sentenced you to 18 months imprisonment with a non parole period of 9 months.
5. Pursuant to s 89(2) of the Sentencing Act, as the charge is a serious motor vehicle offence, any driver licence you hold is cancelled, and you are disqualified from obtaining a further one for a period of 18 months from today.

[1] [2009] VSCA 116; (2009) 22 VR 466.

[2] [2018] VSCA 120, [54].

[3] [2010] VSCA 196; (2010) 28 VR 288.