defendant. Convicted and sentenced to 15 months imprisonment with a non-parole period of 6 months; 9 days to be reckoned as time served; licence cancelled and disqualified for 18 months; court noted that...
Key principles
The offender's conduct in overtaking a slow vehicle on a bend at speeds in excess of the speed limit, where visibility was limited and the road damp and dark, can be dangerous...
Mental health conditions that enliven Verdins principle 5 warrant consideration in sentencing mitigation, but do not automatically satisfy the statutory exceptions in s 5(2H) of...
The statutory exceptions in s 5(2H)(c)(ii) and s 5(2H)(e) require a higher hurdle than Verdins principles; the judge must be satisfied the offender would face substantially and...
A guilty plea given after a sentence indication, in circumstances where the pandemic has continued to affect the criminal justice system, attracts additional weight and a further...
Issues before the court
Whether the offender's mental health and other personal circumstances satisfy the s 5(2H) Sentencing Act exceptions to avoid an immediate term of...
Plain English Summary
Grace Griggs pleaded guilty to dangerous driving causing death after overtaking a horse truck on a bend in poor visibility and at speeds above the 80 km/h limit, colliding with a westbound car and killing its passenger. The court accepted psychological evidence that justified some mitigation under Verdins but found the higher statutory exceptions in s 5(2H) were not satisfied. The court also accepted the victim's evasive manoeuvre contributed to the collision to a limited degree. Taking into account general deterrence, the gravity of the offending (assessed as towards the lower end), and a guilty plea following a sentence indication (with additional weight due to pandemic effects), the court sentenced Griggs to 15 months imprisonment with a 6 month non-parole period, cancelled her licence and disqualified her for 18 months. The court noted that without the plea the sentence would have been 2 years 3 months with a 15 month non-parole period.
AI-generated legal information, not legal advice. Zoe can make mistakes. Check the cited source, and for advice about your situation consult a qualified Australian lawyer.
Deep Dive
1,690 words · generated 14/08/2026
What is the appropriate objective seriousness and resulting sentence for dangerous driving causing death where the driver overtakes on a bend,...
The weight to be given to a guilty plea, including one entered after a sentence indication during the pandemic.
Whether licence cancellation and disqualification should follow conviction for a serious motor vehicle offence.
Cited legislation
No linked legislation citations have been extracted yet.
What happened
Facts, as the County Court set them out, are straightforward and tightly factual. On 11 June 2021 at about 5:55am, Grace Griggs, then aged 20 and driving a 2017 Mazda CX3, overtook a horse truck on Mornington-Tyabb Road while approaching a left-hand bend and an intersection. She accelerated from around 82 km/h to approximately 102 km/h and, during the overtake, entered the oncoming lane and collided with a Ford utility being driven by a learner driver, Dennis Egan, who had his father, Theodore Egan, in the front passenger seat. The impact caused the death of Theodore Egan.
Key scene facts influencing sentencing were: the road is two-lane, two-way with an 80 km/h limit; double white centre lines were present approaching the intersection; the northern side of the road was tree-lined limiting visibility; it was dark with patchy fog and the road was damp. Police and Unfall reconstruction found no mechanical faults and blood tests for both drivers were negative. The offender had no prior convictions. She pleaded guilty (after a sentence indication hearing) and psychological reports demonstrated pre-existing Dependent Personality Disorder and post-offence Major Depressive Disorder and PTSD.
The prosecution characterised the driving as dangerous by misjudgement rather than momentary lapse: overtaking on a bend in limited visibility while exceeding the speed limit. The defence emphasised the absence of alcohol or drugs, no phone use, no prior offending, and that the victim-driver made a sudden evasive manoeuvre which materially contributed to the collision. The judge accepted the contributory movement as a material factor "to a limited degree," applying the principle from Spanjol v The Queen, and accepted that Verdins principle 5 was enlivened by the psychological material. However the statutory s 5(2H) exceptions were found not to be established. The sentence was 15 months imprisonment with a 6 month non-parole period, reduced by the guilty plea (s 6AAA), with licence cancellation and an 18 month disqualification.
All the above is recorded in the judgment's factual and sentencing narrative; cited passages include the opening summary and the sentencing sections (see especially the overview and the sentencing disposals).
Why the court decided this way
Three strands of reasoning carried the court’s decision:
Objective seriousness and causation: The court analysed the objective facts of the driving, speed above the limit while overtaking on a bend with limited visibility and damp conditions, and treated the conduct as dangerous. That established the gravity baseline required for a substantial custodial response for a Category 2 offence. However, the court also examined causation; it accepted the learner driver made a split-second evasive swerve to his right which materially contributed to the collision. Applying Spanjol, the court treated that contribution as a mitigating factor reducing Griggs’s moral culpability, albeit only to a limited degree. The net assessment placed the offending "towards the lower end of seriousness."
Personal circumstances and Verdins principle: The court accepted the psychological reports diagnosing Dependent Personality Disorder, PTSD and major depression. That enlivened Verdins principle 5 (mitigation where imprisonment would exacerbate a medical/psychological condition). The judge recognised the risk of custodial environment worsening the offender's condition, including suicidal ideation, and gave mitigation accordingly. But Verdins operates at a different level from the statutory exceptions in s 5(2H): the judge noted the statutory exceptions require a higher standard (substantially and materially greater risk or wholly exceptional and rare circumstances).
Statutory exceptions, plea weight and general deterrence: The judge considered s 5(2H)(c)(ii) and s 5(2H)(e) expressly and concluded neither exception was satisfied. The court emphasised general deterrence is a primary sentencing consideration for dangerous driving causing death, especially for Category 2 offences: even otherwise remorseful and rehabilitatable offenders may receive immediate imprisonment because of the need for general deterrence. The plea, entered after a sentence indication hearing, and the continuing effects of the pandemic on court resources, carried additional weight; the judge applied s 6AAA to quantify the discount and gave a reduction reflected in the final sentence. The result balanced the need for deterrence and community denunciation against mitigation for personal circumstances and the plea.
Before and after state of the law
Before this decision, the applicable sentencing architecture in Victoria combined:
the Verdins principles (courts consider whether imprisonment would be disproportionately harmful due to health/medical conditions);
the statutory exceptions in s 5(2H) of the Sentencing Act 1991, enacted to create a higher threshold for non-custodial outcomes in certain cases;
established appellate guidance on dangerous driving sentencing and on weighing victim contribution (Spanjol) and plea mitigation (authorities such as Neethling, Peers, Lombardo, Browne, Worboyes referenced in the judgment).
This decision applies those authorities. It confirms the analytical split between Verdins mitigation and the higher and more demanding statutory exceptions in s 5(2H). The court reinforced that Verdins mitigation can be relevant and accepted, but the statutory gateways require separate and stricter satisfaction. The outcome illustrates current sentencing practice: even where Verdins mitigation exists and the offender has excellent prospects of rehabilitation, a Category 2 dangerous driving causing death will commonly attract immediate imprisonment to uphold general deterrence unless s 5(2H) is clearly made out.
So the "before" and "after" is continuity rather than a novel doctrinal shift; DPP v Griggs exemplifies applying existing precedent to factual nuance: accepting limited victim contribution and Verdins mitigation but not reaching the statutory exception threshold.
Key passages with plain-English translation
"Thus in all the circumstances, in my view your conduct does fall towards the lower end of seriousness for an offence of this nature." Translation: The judge decided that, while the conduct was dangerous and caused death, the factual features (including contributory conduct by the other driver and absence of aggravating factors like drugs/alcohol) place the offence nearer the less serious end of the range of dangerous driving causing death.
"Your plea carries additional weight which must be reflected in a further amelioration in sentence, as it was entered in circumstances where the effect of the pandemic still has an impact on the criminal justice system." Translation: Because she accepted a sentence indication and pleaded guilty during the ongoing pandemic, the judge gave an extra discount beyond the ordinary plea discount.
"I am not satisfied that that either of the exceptions relied upon are made out." Translation: Even though the offender had mental health problems and Verdins mitigation, the judge did not consider the stricter statutory exceptions in s 5(2H) to be met, so an immediate custodial term remained appropriate.
Application of Spanjol principle: The court acknowledged that if the victim's conduct is an independent, material cause outside the offender's control, it can reduce culpability. Here the learner's evasive swerve satisfied that to a limited degree, contributing to placing the offence at the lower end of seriousness.
What fact patterns trigger this precedent
DPP v Griggs is directly instructive where sentencing facts include:
Dangerous driving causing death by overtaking a slow vehicle on a bend, at speeds above the limit, in limited visibility and adverse road conditions.
A clear factual finding that the victim made an evasive manoeuvre which was a material cause of the collision.
A young, otherwise law-abiding offender with no prior record, who pleads guilty after a sentence indication and has significant psychiatric reports showing both pre-existing and post-offence conditions (Verdins material).
No evidence of alcohol, drugs, mobile phone use or prior erratic driving.
If those features appear, the court here provides an example of balancing general deterrence against Verdins mitigation and limited victim contribution to reach a custodial sentence at the lower end of the range.
How later courts have treated it
This judgment itself cites appellate authorities (Peers, Lombardo, Browne, Worboyes, Spanjol, Neethling) when applying sentencing principles. It does not, of course, record any later appellate treatment of Griggs because it is a County Court sentencing decision. Any subsequent appellate consideration of Griggs would be outside the judgment. What can be noted from the judgment is that it sits comfortably within the Victorian sentencing jurisprudence: it applies and follows the approach set by appellate courts (citations above) rather than announcing novel law. Practitioners should therefore treat it as an illustration of applying existing authorities rather than binding appellate precedent.
Still-open questions
Several practical questions arise for lawyers preparing to rely on, or distinguish, this decision in future matters:
The precise evidential threshold required to convert Verdins mitigation into satisfaction of s 5(2H)(c)(ii): Griggs confirms Verdins is helpful but not determinative; what additional specific medical, custodial-risks, or facility-evidence would be sufficient to meet the "substantially and materially greater" test in s 5(2H)(c)(ii)? The judgment does not catalogue precise evidential markers.
Categorising victim contribution: Griggs accepted the learner's evasive movement as a material cause 'to a limited degree.' Future cases will need to parse how significant the victim's conduct must be to materially diminish the offender's moral culpability under Spanjol. This judgment provides an example, not a bright-line rule.
Quantifying plea discounts post-sentence-indication in the continuing context of pandemic disruption: Griggs applies an extra amelioration for a plea entered after a sentence indication, informed by the pandemic. How courts will calibrate the additional discount in different factual and temporal contexts remains a live sentencing practice issue.
Interaction between Verdins mitigation and the objective need for general deterrence in Category 2 dangerous driving offences: Griggs demonstrates the tension but does not furnish a formula for reconciling them when mental health effects are severe but not strictly meeting s 5(2H).
Applicability across offender profiles: Griggs involved a young, first-offending driver. Whether a similar package of mitigation would carry identical weight for older offenders or those with prior driving histories is uncertain; this decision should not be assumed directly transferrable.
Closing reminder: This deep dive summarises and explains what is in the County Court judgment DPP v Griggs [2023] VCC 1516 and the reasoning of His Honour Judge Wraight, grounded in the judgment text. It is information, not legal advice. I can make mistakes. Before you act on any of this, rely on it, or use any draft or strategy derived from it, get a qualified Australian lawyer to check it.
Catchwords
Plea of guilty - Dangerous driving causing death - Offending at lower end of seriousness - _Verdins_ - No prior convictions - Excellent prospects of rehabilitation - COVID-19 pandemic.
Judgment (25 paragraphs)
[1]
Sentence: Imprisonment for a period of 15 months with a non-parole period of 6 months.
[2]
Grace Griggs, you have pleaded guilty to one charge of dangerous driving causing death contrary to s 319(1) of the Crimes Act 1958, which carries a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment.
You have no prior criminal history.
[3]
A prosecution opening was tendered on the plea and may be summarised as follows:
[4]
At about 5.55am on Friday 11 June 2021, you drove your black 2017 Mazda CX3 on the Mornington-Tyabb Road in a manner that was dangerous, colliding with a Ford Falcon utility and causing the death of Theodore Egan.[1]
Before the collision, you were travelling east on the Mornington-Tyabb Road behind a horse truck. The horse truck was travelling at around 65 km/h. You overtook the horse truck approaching a left-hand bend near an intersection with Stumpy Gully Road. Five seconds before the collision, you were approximately 130 metres from the area of impact. At that stage, you accelerated from 82 km/h to 102 km/h.
At the same time a Ford was being driven by learner driver Dennis Egan[2] with his father Theodore Egan in the passenger seat. He was travelling west approaching the same bend as you. You overtook the horse truck and entered the lane Dennis Egan was driving in. He reacted to that and moved to his right, towards the east bound lane.
You also began to move back towards the east bound lane. The front of your Mazda impacted the front passenger side of the Ford. The impact occurred near to the centre of the road but partly in the east bound lane with your Mazda being steered left and the Ford being steered right.
At impact, you were travelling at approximately 88 km/h and the Ford was travelling between 22km/h and 47km/h.
[5]
At the time you were 20 years old. You lived in Mornington and held a Victorian probationary driver licence. On 11 June 2021, you were driving to work at BlueScope Steel in Hastings. You were due to start your shift at 7.00am. You had worked there since 24 May 2021.
Theodore Egan was 56 years old. He was supervising his son's driving.
Dennis Egan was 18 years old. He held a Victorian Learners Permit, issued to him on 9 February 2021. He had completed about 41 hours of day driving and about 11 and a half hours of night driving. He was driving his father's Ford to work.
The Mornington-Tyabb Road is a two lane, two-way bitumen road that runs in a general east to west direction with a speed limit of 80 km/h.
At the collision location, for vehicles travelling east, the road bends to the left just before the intersection with Stumpy Gully Road. The opposing lanes are separated by double solid white lines down the approximate road centre in the leadup to the intersection from both directions. The double white lines to the east of Stumpy Gully Road extend for about 77 metres from the centre of the intersection. The double white lines to the west of Stumpy Gully Road extend about 61 metres from the centre of the intersection.
The northern side of the Mornington-Tyabb Road was tree lined. That limits the ability for people travelling east, near the bend, to see oncoming traffic.
A single overhead streetlight was operational at the intersection. At the time of the collision, it was dark, there were some areas of patchy fog, and the road was damp.
[6]
On the day of the collision, Theodore and Dennis Egan woke up at about 5.00am and got ready for work. At about 5.30am, they got into Theodore Egan's Ford. After checking over the vehicle, they left home. Dennis Egan was driving, and Theodore Egan was in the front passenger seat.
You left your home around 5.40am. This was about eight kilometres from the collision scene. At the Moorooduc roundabout, you started driving behind a horse truck. You followed the horse truck on Mornington-Tyabb Road, past the Peninsula Link exit ramp.
John Barbady was the driver of the horse truck. He was transporting horses from the Mornington racetrack to his employer's stables. He travelled on Mornington-Tyabb Road about five to seven times a day. He approached the Stumpy Gully Road intersection and as he was coming up to the bend, he saw the lights of a vehicle travelling in the opposite direction. He looked in his side mirror and saw the lights of your vehicle. Your car was on the right side of the road and about in the middle to the back of his truck. When he first saw your car, he was driving at about 65 km/h. He took his foot off the accelerator and applied the brakes. He estimated that your Mazda was about 100 metres in front of him when the collision occurred.
As he started braking, Mr Barbady saw the Ford swerve into his lane - the east bound lane. It is the prosecution case that this was Dennis Egan trying to avoid a collision. Mr Barbady states that he saw the Mazda continuing to travel in a 'straight line' impacting the passenger's side of the Ford. He did not observe you trying to brake. He stopped the truck and provided help. He later assisted Police with a scene 'recreation' on 7 July 2021.
Dennis Egan was familiar with the Stumpy Gully Road intersection. As he was approaching the intersection, he saw the illumination of headlights coming quickly towards him. When he first saw the light, it was illuminating the trees and he could only see one of the headlights of your oncoming car. He thought that vehicle might be going to turn south at the intersection.
Your vehicle continued towards Mr Egan who then saw your two headlights. He states that at that moment he thought everything was fine and he kept driving for about a second. As you approached the intersection, your car was still completely on the wrong side of the road. Dennis Egan braked and turned to his right (roughly 45 degrees) to try and miss your oncoming car.
[7]
Triple Zero was called by numerous people and emergency services responded shortly after the collision. Theodore Egan was pronounced deceased at the scene.
Ambulance Victoria paramedic, Nathan Greenland, treated you. You told him that:
you were driving to work, heading towards Hastings, when you overtook a truck on the wrong side of the road;
you sped up to overtake this truck, but there was an oncoming car approaching heading towards Mornington. You tried to pull back into your appropriate lane, but the oncoming vehicle also pulled into your lane resulting in both cars colliding; and
you were travelling over 80 km/h and had not applied any braking prior to the collision.
You were conveyed to the Alfred Hospital for observation and treatment of minor injuries.
Holly Strickland arrived at the scene after the collision and assisted you. You said to her that you did not know what happened, you went to overtake, and the other car swerved into you.
Dennis Egan was conveyed to the Alfred Hospital where he received treatment for a right collar bone fracture.
[8]
Police officers from the Major Collision Investigation Unit attended and examined the collision scene. Test and surveys were conducted. Videos and photographs were taken.
Both drivers provided blood samples which showed neither had consumed alcohol or drugs.
The prosecution opening tendered on the plea details the findings of the Major Collision Investigation Unit in relation to the lead up to the collision which I will not reproduce in these reasons.
Mechanical examination of your Mazda did not reveal any faults, failures or conditions that could have caused or contributed to the collision. The speedometer needle was locked and had a reading of approximately 102 km/h.
The examination of the Ford driver's side headlight showed evidence of it having been being illuminated when a force was applied to it. The Ford's passenger side low beam fuse was blown. It could not be determined if this was a result of the collision, or if it was blown prior to the collision. There were no other faults with the lighting system at the time of the collision.
[9]
On Thursday 17 June 2021 you attended the Hastings Police station where you were interviewed by police. You told police that you met up with the horse truck at the Moorooduc roundabout on Tyabb-Hastings Road and followed it past the Peninsula Link. You said you were driving at 60 km/h behind the truck.
In relation to the collision, you said the following:
after you passed the third roundabout, you double checked that it was a dotted line and that there was no oncoming traffic;
you did not see any signs;
you believed that it was safe and that it was a straight road, which is when you decided to overtake the truck;
that when you were a little more than halfway past the truck, you saw the oncoming traffic and made the decision that it would be safer to speed up to complete the overtake because you were too far forward to slow back behind the truck;
you sped up and once you had fully made it back into your lane, you let out a sigh of relief;
you thought you might have sped up to 80 km/h;
you thought that the oncoming driver had swerved and that is when you collided; and
you did not get to hit the brakes and just remember hitting the other car.
[10]
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. However, it is also an offence that is capable of being committed in a very wide variety of circumstances which must be assessed in order to form a view as to the gravity of the offending.
In this instance, the dangerousness of your driving is particularised by the prosecution as being a misjudgement of the circumstances rather than momentary inattention. In your record of interview, you describe that the manoeuvre you took was as a result of you seeing the oncoming utility when you were halfway past the truck and then making the decision that it was safer to speed up and complete the manoeuvre rather than falling back into your lane.
Mr Haywood, who appeared with Ms Malobabic on behalf of the Director of Public Prosecutions, submitted that the gravity of your offending is informed by: the fact that you were travelling at 102 km/h in an 80 km/h zone when overtaking; that you overtook on a bend in the road where the trees obscured the vision of oncoming vehicles; and that it was dark and the road was damp.
Mr Newton who appeared on your behalf, with reference to DPP v Neethling,[3] highlighted the matters which are absent in this case including that there is no evidence of drugs or alcohol, no evidence of use of a mobile phone, that you were not sleep deprived and that there was no evidence of erratic driving before you made the decision to pass the truck. In summary, Mr Newton submitted that in all the circumstances, the gravity of the offending and your moral culpability fall within the lower range.
As to your degree of responsibility, while you were familiar with the road and you did make a decision based on poor judgement, the fact that the deceased's son made a split second decision to turn to the right to avoid a collision was a contributing factor in the collision. In Spanjol v The Queen,[4] a case of negligently causing serious injury where the victim was not wearing a seatbelt, the Court of Appeal outlined the principles that apply when considering if there was some contribution to the collision that would reduce the offender's responsibility. The relevant consideration, applicable in this instance, is whether the offender is able to establish that there was an additional factor, outside the offender's control, which was also a material cause of the serious injury. In the circumstances, I accept that the principle applies in this instance to a limited degree in relation to the movement of the victim's vehicle that did contribute to the collision and the tragic consequences.
[11]
A victim impact statement was prepared by Ms Roxanne Egan[6], the wife of the victim and mother of Dennis, which she read at the plea hearing. Ms Egan details the emotional pain she has experienced since her husband died. She describes how the devastating loss has affected her mental health and the difficulties her and her sons now face. She details how she and her sons continue to grieve the fact that her husband, their father will not be a part of significant life events. She remains concerned about the effects of the trauma on her son who was driving at the time.
Ms Egan continues to suffer post-traumatic stress, anxiety, depression and sleeplessness on a daily basis. She notes that she is no longer the happy, optimistic and strong woman she once was.
I have taken her victim impact statement into account.
[12]
You are 22 years of age and were 20 years of age at the time of the offending.
You grew up in Sale before relocating to Mornington. You are the youngest of two children. Your father works at BlueScope Steel and your mother works at Australia Post. You had a stable and happy childhood, enjoying close relationships with your immediate and extended family members.
You attended primary schools in Sale and Mornington, and then Mornington Secondary College. You struggled to make friends in primary school and were often excluded. As a result, you spent a lot of time on your own. You struggled academically but obtained your VSC after engaging with additional tutoring. You commenced a nursing degree after school but found it difficult to study and ceased your enrolment. You have expressed an interest in undertaking courses in veterinary nursing but are yet to enrol.
You have been engaged in various forms of employment. At 14, you worked part-time doing pharmacy deliveries. You also worked at a family-owned café for three years. After leaving university, you gained employment at BlueScope Steel, driving forklifts and then working on the paint line. You found it hard being the youngest and only woman on the paint line and struggled to connect with your colleagues. After attending court in March of this year, you experienced bullying by some of the men on the line and were subsequently moved to the day shift, working five days on and five days off with an all-female crew. After the collision, you took personal leave at the recommendation of your psychologist before ultimately resigning because of the suicidal ideation and distress you experienced while driving to and from work. Your parents and other family members then drove you, but your distress did not alleviate. You have since avoided driving generally, particularly along the same road as the collision.
You have never had a romantic relationship and reported that you struggle to make friends and bond with peers from a young age. You slowly lost contact with your friends, particularly after the collision, as they went on to complete university degrees, begin their careers and make new friends while you did not. You have been reluctant to socialise since the collision and rarely leave the house.
You have never used illicit substances other than trying cannabis once at the age of 18. Prior to the collision, you would drink socially when out with friends but never to excess.
[13]
I first take into account your plea of guilty. I note that this matter was subject to a sentence indication hearing before me, resolving when you ultimately accepted the indication. While you conducted a contested committal hearing, your plea has saved the court the time and expense of a trial and demonstrates your acceptance of responsibility. Your plea carries additional weight which must be reflected in a further amelioration in sentence, as it was entered in circumstances where the effect of the pandemic still has an impact on the criminal justice system.[7]
At the sentence indication hearing a number of submissions were made on your behalf as to whether any of the s 5(2H)Sentencing Act 1991 ('Sentencing Act') exceptions can be established, specifically:
Section 5(2H)(c)(ii): The offender has impaired mental functioning that would result in the offender being subject to substantially and materially greater than the ordinary burden or risks of imprisonment; or
Section 5(2H)(e): That there are substantial and compelling circumstances that are exceptional and rare that justify not making an order for an immediate term of imprisonment.
In relation to s 5(2H)(c)(ii), it is well settled that the hurdle set by that exception is higher than that which attracts the principles in Verdins. As to s 5(2H)(e) as was noted by the court in , the phrase 'substantially compelling circumstances which are exceptional and rare' refers to circumstances that 'are wholly outside the ordinary factors typical of the relevant offence, in this case dangerous driving causing death'.
[14]
It is the necessary reality for offending of this kind that people with unblemished records, undoubted remorse, and with little or no prospect of reoffending, will receive an immediate term of imprisonment. That is the effect of making the charge a category two offence and a consequence of the need for general deterrence. However, other sentencing principles which serve to moderate sentence are not to be put aside as irrelevant. [12]
[15]
Having taken in to account the materials tendered on your behalf, including the psychological reports of Ms Matthews and psychologist Daria Sizenko, I am not satisfied that that either of the exceptions relied upon are made out. Undoubtedly, this has been a devastating experience for you resulting in depression and PTSD and I accept that you suffer from a pre-existing Dependent Personality Disorder. As such, I am satisfied that the conditions you suffer from do enliven Verdins principle 5, which was also accepted by the prosecution.
Turning to your prospects of rehabilitation, you come before the court at age 22 with no prior convictions. You do not have to grapple with any alcohol or drug issues, and you have the ongoing support of your parents who were present at your plea. In the circumstances, while your PTSD, Dependent Personality Disorder and Major Depressive Disorder will continue to require treatment, in my view, once you move through the criminal process, your prospects of rehabilitation are excellent.
The primary sentencing consideration in a case such as this is general deterrence. In the circumstances, in my view, this case is a clear example where an otherwise safe and competent driver has driven without the required due care and attention in circumstances where the conditions at the time, while challenging, would not be uncommon. The clear message to be conveyed is that all drivers must remain alert at all times and make sound judgement when operating a vehicle. As to specific deterrence, for similar reasons outlined in relation to your rehabilitation, it carries little weight in this instance.
[16]
Ms Griggs, would you please stand.
Grace Griggs, on Charge 1, dangerous driving causing death, you are convicted and sentenced to 15 months imprisonment. I direct that you serve 6 months imprisonment before becoming eligible for parole.
Pursuant to s 18 of the Sentencing Act, I declare that 9 days be reckoned as the period of imprisonment already served under the sentence I have imposed. That does not include today.
Pursuant to s 6AAA of the Sentencing Act, if not for your plea of guilty, I would have sentenced you to a period of imprisonment of 2 years and 3 months with a non parole period of 15 months.
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.
Convicted and sentenced to 15 months imprisonment with a non-parole period of 6 months; 9 days to be reckoned as time served; licence cancelled and disqualified for 18 months; court noted that absent the guilty plea sentence would likely have been 2 years 3 months with a 15 month non-parole period (Sentence, paras 2-5).
You swerved back towards the eastbound lane and impacted the passenger side of the Ford, causing Theodore Egan to sustain fatal injuries.
Cameron Edwards was driving west behind the Ford. He was about 10 to 20 metres behind the Ford as he got closer to the Stumpy Gully Road intersection. As Mr Edwards approached the intersection, he saw the lights of Mr Barbady's truck coming towards him. Then he saw your headlights, to the left of the truck headlights, on his side of the road. When he first saw the lights, he estimated that he was about 40 metres from the intersection. He slammed on his brakes and saw the Ford swerve to the right and your car attempt to enter into its correct lane - the east bound lane. Mr Edwards swerved to the left to avoid a collision and impacted trees on the south side of the road.
Thus in all the circumstances, in my view your conduct does fall towards the lower end of seriousness for an offence of this nature.
A report was prepared by forensic psychologist Pamela Matthews and tendered on the plea. Ms Matthews reported that you are suffering from Dependent Personality Disorder, Major Depressive Disorder and moderate level Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder ('PTSD'). Ms Matthews is of the view that the bullying and isolation you experienced in your adolescence - which manifested in low self-esteem, social isolation, sensitivity and low resilience - made you psychologically vulnerable prior to the collision.
She opines that your Dependent Personality Disorder, which was present before the collision, causes a pervasive and excessive need to be taken care of, submissive and clinging behaviours and fear of separation. Your symptomology manifests in passivity, difficulty making decisions alone, an inability to voice resentful feelings and causal emotionality, which in turn elicits nurturance from others. As a result, you have become highly dependent on your parents, particularly your father, and you struggle to establish social relationships and assert yourself. Ms Matthews suggests that because of your diagnosis, a custodial environment is likely to exacerbate your symptoms of suicidal ideation, risk of self-injury and isolation.
Ms Matthews reports that your PTSD and Major Depressive Disorder have occurred as a result of the collision and subsequent bullying and confrontations you have experienced through the media reporting of this case and from colleagues. She also reports that your symptoms have been exacerbated by court hearings and the anniversary of the collision.
Reference letters from your mother, father and paternal aunt and an email from your employer were tendered on the plea. The letters described you as a calm, caring and friendly person who continues to experience the ongoing social isolation as a result of bullying in your adolescence. They detail how the collision caused you to become even more isolated and reclusive, dissociating from friends and colleagues and significantly relying on your parents support to undertake daily activities. The letters convey the decline in your emotional state and mental fragility since the collision, with your parents fearing that you may resort to self-harm. The email from your employer, which was sent at the time of your resignation, opines your positive work ethic and your kind and gentle nature.