DPP v Han [2025] VCC 829

1. At the time of the offending you were aged 76 years old (DOB 7 August 1946).
2. The victim is Zurina Iskandar, who was 52 years old at the time of the Collision.
3. On 25 July 2023, you were driving a black 2017 Toyota.
4. At about 2.45pm, Ms Iskandar went to the Devon Plaza Shopping Centre with her husband. She walked to the traffic lights at the intersection of Doncaster Road and then pressed the button on the traffic lights, waiting for the walk sign to turn green.
5. You were travelling west on Doncaster Road toward the intersection. Doncaster Road in this area is a two-way divided road with lanes running in an east west direction. Approaching the Devon Plaza intersection, the road has a slight incline which does not affect visibility.
6. The intersection between Doncaster Road and Devon Plaza is controlled by traffic and pedestrian lights.
7. When the lights turned green facing Ms Iskandar, witness Mr Kwok Leung drove his maroon Toyota into the intersection from Devon Plaza and stopped, waiting for the traffic to clear in order to make a right turn east into Doncaster Road.
8. At the same time, a bus driven by witness Mr David Partridge had stopped at the intersection of Doncaster Road and Devon Plaza, also facing west in the same direction you were travelling. He waited for the lights facing him to turn back from red to green.
9. Mr Partridge saw your vehicle approaching the intersection on the left of the bus. Realising it was not going to stop, he hit the horn of the bus to try to alert you of the red traffic light ahead.
10. A few seconds later, you drove past the bus and into the intersection without stopping.
11. Later inspection of the traffic lights confirmed that the lights had been amber for 4.5 seconds and then red for 8 - 9 seconds prior to your vehicle entering the intersection against the red light.
12. At 2.55 pm, your vehicle collided with Ms Iskandar in the intersection as she crossed the road in accordance with the green pedestrian light. After hitting her, your vehicle collided with Mr Leung's vehicle.
13. The impact of your vehicle caused Ms Iskandar to be thrown across the bonnet of your vehicle and her head struck the driver's door of Mr Leung's car. She fell to the side of the vehicle, with her feet pointing back towards the stationary bus.
14. Senior Constable Sandhu, who was leaving the adjacent Doncaster police station, saw the collision and described the impact as being "so enormous that it lifted the pedestrian a couple of feet in the air."
15. There was impact damage to your vehicle on the front left, the bonnet and the windscreen.
16. Mr Partridge found you crying in your stationary vehicle. Senior Constable Sandhu stayed with Ms Iskandar until the ambulance arrived.
17. The Police analysis of the scene of the collision and surrounding circumstances showed that:

(a) The speed of your vehicle at impact was determined to be between 31 and 60 kph, based on the distance Ms Iskandar was thrown after impact and the damage profile of your vehicle. Doncaster Road in this area is a 70 kph zone;

(b) There were no mechanical faults or defects with your vehicle at the time of collision**;**

(c) All traffic signals were properly operating;

(d) It was daytime, there was no rain and there was no limitation on visibility for you approaching the intersection.

1. You were taken to Doncaster police station, where you gave a "no comment" record of interview.
2. No drugs or alcohol were found in your blood.

1. Ms Iskandar suffered the following injuries, as noted by Dr Schreiber:

(a) Complex multiple unstable pelvic fractures;

(b) Fractures of the sacrum;

(c) Fracture of the left calf bone head avulsion, including biceps tendon and outer knee ligament ruptures;

(d) ACL right knee alignment;

(e) Grade 2-3 laceration of the left and right lobes of the liver, with associated perihepatic fluid and haemorrhage.

1. Dr Schreiber noted the ongoing or protracted nature of the injuries were sufficient to meet the definition of serious injury:

(a) The bone fractures would take several weeks or month to heal and consolidate;

(b) Long term pelvic and leg pains would be expected;

(c) Ms Iskandar was hospitalised for three weeks and required rehabilitation for several months;

(d) Future risks of the fractures not healing, ongoing pain, impaired mobility and psychological sequelae.

1. After the provision of Dr Schreiber's report, Ms Iskandar made a further statement in September 2024, detailing her recovery, noting that:

(a) After being discharged from hospital she used a wheelchair then a walking frame. At the time of the statement, she was using a walking stick;

(b) She cannot sit for more than 60 minutes or walk up or down stairs due to pain;

(c) Her neuropsychologist diagnosed a mild traumatic brain injury;

(d) She had lost the ability to multi-task and has difficulty with short term memory;

(e) She is unable to return to her work as a kindergarten teacher.

1. In her Victim Impact Statement Ms Iskandar powerfully and thoughtfully details the impact of your offending. She describes in plain and clear terms the very real, ongoing consequences of the offence committed against her. As agreed between Counsel, she also provided updates as to her recovery and of her continued limited physical mobility.
2. Prior to the collision, she describes herself as a very active person, wife and mother. She once enjoyed road trips, sports, outings and travel. As a consequence of the offending, she is now unable to enjoy these activities; is reliant on a walking aid and experiences constant and debilitating pain. Her quality of life has clearly diminished.
3. She is impacted and limited in every way physically; from being unable to sit for more than 30 minutes without feeling very sore and uncomfortable to experiencing difficulty in turning her body when lying down and getting up from bed.
4. She was an active, enthusiastic, contributing and dedicated kindergarten teacher. She is now heartbroken and devastated that she is no longer capable of pursuing this passion, which was clearly central to her life.
5. In the immediate aftermath of the collision she describes experiencing excruciating pain. She endured a number of significant, painful and intrusive medical procedures and experienced considerable anxiety, distress and helplessness. She was a patient at the Royal Melbourne Hospital for what she describes as '3 agonizing and upsetting weeks.'
6. Upon her discharge from hospital, she continued to experience constant pain and basic tasks, such as showering or using the bathroom, had become daunting and frustrating. Prompted by her families concern as to her declining memory and difficulty in retaining information, after several assessments she was diagnosed by a neuropsychologist with having minor traumatic brain injury due to the trauma.
7. Ms Iskandar speaks of the resilience and hard work required as an outpatient at the rehabilitation hospital and of her work with the occupational therapist and psychologist. She underwent a further operation on 26 September 2024 after they found a leak in a vein on her right leg due to the trauma.
8. The injuries she sustained are not resolved and are ongoing. She continues to have follow up appointments with her GP and surgeon and has weekly physiotherapy and hydrotherapy. As recently as April of this year she had another surgery to remove the large screws across her pelvis in the hope that it would relieve some pain.
9. The impact of the incident is also clearly not limited to her physical health. She speaks of a decline in her confidence, stability and independence.
10. Ms Iskandar concludes:

'I still feel anxious and stressed when I am on the road, as a pedestrian and as a passenger. There were times where I unconsciously had an outburst when seeing someone cross the road or when I perceived cars went too fast. This occurred when I was either in my husbands car or a taxi. I held on tight to my seat and prayed continuously in my heart. Whenever I passed by the intersection where the accident happened, I had flashbacks. I am stressed with all the changes and avoid activities that might make me fall. I cant afford to hurt my back again. This traumatic accident has impacted my family and myself forever'.

1. Dangerous driving causing serious injury is an inherently serious offence, as reflected in its maximum penalty of 5 years imprisonment. General deterrence must be given considerable weight in sentencing on this charge.
2. Driving is dangerous when there is 'some serious breach of the proper conduct of a vehicle so as to be, in reality, and not speculatively, potentially dangerous to others.' The driving must have some feature which subjects the public 'to some risk over and above that ordinarily associated with the driving of a motor vehicle, including driving by a person who may on occasion drive with less than due care and attention'. A court's assessment of the dangerousness of the driving will be informed by the extent of the risk which the driving created, as well as by the extent of potential harm should the risk materialise.' Dangerous driving encompasses a very wide range of conduct[1].
3. Given the wide spectrum of conduct that may be captured by the charge, it is necessary to consider the features of the driving and the driver, including the presence or absence of aggravating features, so as to accurately assess the objective gravity of the offending.
4. In your case, there is no evidence or allegations of any erratic driving on your part. It is not suggested that you were speeding, intoxicated or substance affected, sleep deprived or fatigued and I accept that this was not a protracted episode of dangerous driving. As further advanced on your behalf, you were lawfully licenced to drive at the time and have no history at all of bad driving. You were not engaged in any kind of risky manoeuvres such as trying to overtake a vehicle and your health was not a factor in the collision.
5. While not designed to detract from the serious impact of the offending but rather applying the relevant legal framework, the prosecution accept that this is not the most serious example of dangerous driving, given the absence of these risk factors.
6. The prosecution emphasis that the traffic light was red for 8-9 seconds prior to impact, there was no evidence that you attempted to brake and you were warned of the danger by the bus driver, Mr Partridge. The only explanation for the offending, the prosecution contend, was 'complete inattention' to your driving.
7. The prosecution note and do not dispute, the explanation you give, as proffered through your Counsel. Your mobile phone, which was connected to the driver display console through Bluetooth, was continuously ringing. The ringing was very loud and distracting and you were attempting to either turn it down or off on the console, a system that you were unfamiliar with and that had earlier been set up by your son. Your confusion and distraction in doing this caused you not to see the red light ahead.
8. The prosecution submit that distraction caused by a mobile phone, calls for a strong element of general deterrence. Your Counsel submits that these circumstances, along with the absence of other markers of dangerousness, supports an assessment of your moral culpability as low.
9. On my assessment, in all the circumstances and when considered alongside other examples of this kind of offending, your moral culpability does sit towards the lower end. I accept your Counsel's submission that it can be viewed as an aberration of a 'normally careful and good driver' who has led 'an otherwise perfectly blameless life.' I note that on the day in question you were driving to pick up and take to a hair appointment an 89 year old woman whom you have known for years and had been voluntarily assisting.
10. However, while the episode of driving was relatively brief and there's an absence of many risk factors, what occurred was more than a 'mistake.' The lights had been red for about 8-9 seconds before you drove through them. During that time your focus and attention had entirely shifted from the road and your driving, and you allowed yourself to become completely distracted by your ringing phone and your attempts to either stop or subdue it. Your distraction for this period of time created a risk of danger to others that ultimately materialised.
11. The consequences of your offending have been significant. Clearly, as already canvassed, the nature and extent of the injuries inflicted have been lifechanging.

1. Ms Han I also accept that your offending and the harm you have caused has had, and will continue to have, a long-lasting impact on you. I accept that you are genuinely and sincerely remorseful for your offending. Your friend of many years, Ms Ann Eddy, also a retired nurse who previously worked alongside you, states, 'from our conversations, I know Ailin is very sorry and truly remorseful for what has occurred. She is extremely stressed over the situation. Her utmost concern is for the welfare of the person who has been injured.' Another friend and former colleague, Ms Bernadette Lam, states 'She has told me in great detail of the incident. Ailin is most distressed with what had happened and very much concerned for the welfare of the pedestrian involved.' Your son, Mr Johann Ismail, speaks of your anguish for your victim's wellbeing and how you yearn for an opportunity to apologise to her in person. Consistent with this display of remorse, I also note that immediately after the collision you were found by a bus driver and police members at the scene sobbing.

1. You have entered an early plea of guilty to the charge which entitles you to a significant sentencing discount. It facilitates the course of justice, prevents witnesses from giving evidence about a high-impact and traumatic event and has an overall utilitarian benefit. It is also, I accept, a meaningful display of remorse.

1. Ms Han, I must also take into account the significant mitigatory factors in your case and guard against the impact of your offending swamping consideration of these other important sentencing matters.

1. You are now 78 years of age and you have no prior or subsequent criminal history.
2. Your Counsel, Mr Moore, outlined your personal circumstances. You were born in Singapore in 1946. You married Mr Ismail and you have two sons who are now adults and they have both provided insightful references on your behalf. You are a devout Catholic and you attend mass weekly.
3. You migrated to Australia, leaving all your extended family behind, to build a better life for your sons. You arrived and settled here in 1977. You worked as a nurse your entire career and worked at a range of hospitals and in numerous fields of nursing including intensive care, paediatrics, emergency and aged care. Ms Lam, who previously worked with you at the Box Hill Hospital Paediatric Unit states that you were 'a very responsible nurse, caring and conscientious and greatly liked by [your] colleagues and those who interacted with [you].'
4. Your son, Johann, refers to your long and distinguished career and states 'her extensive experience in nursing reflects her unwavering commitment to patient care'. Further, he states, 'her nature has always been one of empathy and a natural tendency to help others, regardless of their circumstances.' These sentiments are also echoed by your other son, Michael. He refers to your 'caring and dependable' nature and of your sacrifice and dedication in raising and supporting your children while maintaining a nursing career that spanned some five decades. Your Counsel submits that your despair and guilt for the suffering you've caused is heightened because your first-hand knowledge, through your work, of what road trauma and its devastation looks like.
5. You retired from nursing in 2014, at the age of 68. In retirement you have continued to make contributions through your volunteer work. You are a volunteer teacher with the University of the Third Age (U3A) where you help to teach migrants English and have done so for approximately 8 years. This involves going to the homes of migrants and teaching English. Through your church you also volunteer to assist elderly people with deliveries and driving them to medical and other appointments. Your volunteer work also extends to helping at local opportunity shops.
6. Your husband is also a retired nurse. You live together in Warrandyte. He had an accident at home in 2007 and fractured his spine and has ongoing pain and impaired mobility. He also has Parkinson's Disease, which affects his gross motor skills. He has a level 2 home care package but you also provide him with substantial care and assistance.
7. As submitted by your Counsel, family is very important to you. The testimonials provided by your sons reflect the loving and close relationship you have with them. Michael works in Hong Kong and travels back to Australia to see the family at least once per year. Johann lives and works in Melbourne. You are also a devoted grandmother to his two young boys and he speaks of the 'valuable time' you spend together, teaching them 'good values and imparting wisdom and knowledge.'
8. You also remain close with your family in Singapore. You grew up as the second of four children. Your older sister is 85 years of age and you are also very close to your niece. Your brother is 71 and continues to drive taxis in Singapore. Your younger sister is now deceased, having died from cancer in the 1990s.

1. You renounced your citizenship in Singapore in the 1980s but travel there annually to see your family and typically stay for some 4-6 weeks. On your behalf your Counsel raised the prospect that a conviction for this offending may impact your future travel. As discussed with your Counsel, this is entirely unknown and there is no evidence before the Court to enable any confident finding to be made. I accept that it is a matter that has caused you some concern.
2. You are of very good health and have minimal chronic health conditions, aside from high blood pressure which is managed with medication. You had a procedure in January 2023 to deal with cataracts and otherwise have excellent vision. You do not drink alcohol and have never taken illicit drugs.

1. As advanced on your behalf, I also take into account the delay in the finalisation of this matter. The offending occurred on 25 July 2023. Charges were laid nearly a year later, on 3 July 2024. The expert report concerning serious injury was obtained in September 2024. You sought to deal with the matter expeditiously, that is by summary jurisdiction, but the application was refused. The matter was then listed for a plea on 12 June 2025. There has been close to a two-year delay from the offending to the plea date. I accept your Counsel's submission that while it is not an exceptional delay, it is a meaningful one, engaging both the fairness and rehabilitation limb as mitigating factors. There has been no further offending and I accept that the court process, along with its uncertainty, has been stressful, for someone of your advanced years with no prior criminal history.

1. As for your rehabilitative prospects, in all the circumstances, I regard these to be excellent. The testimonials collectively speak of you as someone who is kind, responsible, generous and community-minded; someone who is well regarded and who has lived a useful life in the community. They speak of this offending as entirely out of character. I accept your Counsel's submission that up until the point of this offence, you had lived a 'valuable life' of a 'model citizen.'

1. The purposes for which sentences may be imposed are just punishment, general deterrence, specific deterrence, rehabilitation, denunciation and protection of the community. In a case of dangerous driving causing serious injury general deterrence looms large. The sentence imposed must generally deter others from dangerous driving which could give rise to serious injury. Further, the sentence imposed must reflect the denunciation of the community of this type of activity and protection of the community is relevant. While I accept that specific deterrence has some role, I consider the likelihood of you reoffending in this matter to be remote.
2. I take into account the sentencing guidelines referred to in s5 of the Sentencing Act 1991, where relevant in your case. I take into account the principles of parsimony and proportionality. I have also had regard to other relevant cases and the sentencing statistics referred to, noting their guidance, along with their inherent limitations.
3. Both Counsel submit that given the circumstances of the offence, along with your personal circumstances, a community corrections order (CCO) is within range as an appropriate sentencing disposition.
4. I had you assessed for an order. You were assessed as suitable and as a low risk of future offending. As for conditions, the assessment supported a work condition noting that you do not suffer from any restrictive disabilities or medical impediments. Conditions for program or mental health treatment were not recommended, given in particular that you disclosed no mental health issues and are otherwise well supported through friends and the Church. I also note during the recent assessment with corrections that you became visibly upset whilst discussing the impact of the offending on your victim and you discussed and acknowledged how much she had suffered due to your actions.
5. Before imposing sentence, I want to return to Ms Iskandar and again thank her for her valuable contributions to this process. I also want to make clear to Ms Iskandar that the sentence I am about to impose is not a reflection of the hardship and difficulties that she has experienced since the advent of her injuries. While the sentence takes into account the impact of the offending on her and the resulting injuries and damage, it does not represent a measure of her suffering, pain or losses, nor could it possibly do so.
6. My task is to sentence you consistent with the circumstances of the offending and the application of the relevant principles of law. In formulating the appropriate sentence, I must also have regard to the powerful mitigatory factors advanced on your behalf.
7. In all the circumstances I consider that all of the relevant sentencing principles can be properly accommodated by a disposition in the form of a CCO. I have had regard to the decision of the Court of appeal in Boulton v The Queen which makes clear that a CCO can powerfully denounce an offender's conduct whilst simultaneously benefitting the offender and the community[2].

1. On the one charge of dangerous driving causing serious injury you are sentenced to a CCO of 18 months duration with the condition that you undertake 220 hours of community work. I have set this number of community work hours taking into account its punitive nature (s.48C(2)) and other circumstances, including your advanced years (see also, s.48C(7).
2. As to whether this sentence should be imposed with conviction, I take into account the submissions made by your Counsel concerning the possible extra-curial punishment arising from your potential inability to visit family overseas. As already noted, this is largely unknown and speculative. No other matters were advanced relevant to the impact of the recording of a conviction on your economic or social wellbeing. I have had regard to other circumstances, including your advanced years, previous good character and assessed excellent prospects of rehabilitation (see s8, Sentencing Act 1991). Having regard to these matters, along with the nature of the offence, the prominence of general deterrence and the significant and ongoing impact on Ms Iskandar, in the exercise of my discretion, I consider that the recording of a conviction is necessary to meet the relevant sentencing considerations. The order is imposed with conviction.
3. In these circumstances, I am not required to provide a s.6AAA declaration and do not intend to**.** But can I indicate to you, Ms Han, that your unreserved acknowledgement of your offending, the remorse that you have expressed, your plea of guilty, are matters that are powerful and matters that I have taken into account and but for your plea of guilty I can indicate certainly that the sentence imposed would have been a harsher and/or a longer one.
4. As agreed between Counsel, section 87P of the Sentencing Act 1991 applies, requiring Ms Han's driver's licence to be cancelled for a minimum period of 18 months. In all the circumstances, I impose this minimum period commencing from today's date, it having been confirmed that there were no notices or otherwise any impediments from driving up until today's date.
5. Now I am going to provide to counsel a copy of the order. What it does, and we will have that provided to both counsel now, please - just one moment actually. I have to retrieve my copy. It has, you can see, counsel, the core conditions and I might just go through them. You can certainly turn to Ms Han and refer to - and speak to her in a moment, if you like.
6. These core conditions will effectively apply and the order will continue up until the satisfactory completion of the work. That is pursuant to s48C(7). It is the way these orders operate. The core conditions, though, while that order is in place, and the order commences today, is that you must not commit another offence that is punishable by imprisonment during the duration/operation of this order commencing today. You must comply with any obligation or requirement of Corrections. You must report to and receive visits from Corrections.
7. You must report to Community Corrections within two clear working days of this order and the closest Community Corrections Centre then is Melbourne. Just one moment. Is that right, Franklin Street, Melbourne?
8. MR MOORE: The reason for that in the report is that with offenders with a very low risk
9. HER HONOUR: That's where they're sent.
10. MR MOORE: That's the appropriate,
11. HER HONOUR: Is that right?
12. MR MOORE: That's the appropriate venue, yes.
13. HER HONOUR: All right. And she's going to be able to - I mean she won't be attending for supervision, for example. She'll need to attend that initial appointment and then I'm sure that they can set up the work from there.
14. MR MOORE: Yes.
15. HER HONOUR: Otherwise if that were something to occur regularly without a licence I'm not sure that it might,
16. MR MOORE: It would be extremely difficult.
17. HER HONOUR: Yes. But I don't see why from there, if that's process - thanks for explaining that.
18. MR MOORE: Yes.
19. HER HONOUR: If that's the process I don't see why they can't then go on to organise matters that need to be organised.
20. MR MOORE: I agree.
21. HER HONOUR: All right. So that is where you need to attend and the address is there, so you'll need to go within two clear working days of receiving this order, so in the next two days. You must let Corrections know within two clear working days of you changing your address or your job. You must not leave Victoria without first getting permission to do so from Corrections. You must obey all lawful instructions from Corrections. They are core conditions that apply to every community corrections order imposed. The unpaid community work, as I have indicated, is 220 hours during that period of time.
22. Now, Mr Moore, would you like to just speak to your client for a moment, ensure that she agrees to the conditions. They're the conditions. You can breach the order of (a) you do not comply with the conditions or (b) you commit another offence punishable by imprisonment. If you breach the order then, Ms Han, you'll return back before me. I'll deal with you for the breach. It's open for the court also to resentence you on the charge, all right?
23. OFFENDER: Yes.
24. HER HONOUR: Thank you, Mr Moore.
25. MR MOORE: Thank you, Your Honour. No difficulties there.
26. HER HONOUR: All right, thank you. And has she signed that order.
27. MR MOORE: I beg your pardon, I don't have a Biro.
28. HER HONOUR: That's all right, my associates can or your instructor - there we go.
29. MR MOORE: No, I have one now. Thank you, Your Honour.
30. HER HONOUR: Thank you. I'll sign that now and we'll ensure before Ms Han leaves court, please, that she has a physical copy of that document and then, counsel, otherwise it will be electronically provided to you all.
31. MR MOORE: Thank you, Your Honour.
32. HER HONOUR: Thank you. Nothing further? There were no other ancillary or forfeiture orders, were there?
33. MR PICKERING: No, Your Honour.
34. HER HONOUR: All right. Nothing further, counsel?
35. MR MOORE: The only other matter, there was a reference at the very beginning to the 76 versus 78 age issue. Ms Han was 76 years old on the day of the offence.
36. HER HONOUR: At the day. And is now 78?
37. MR MOORE: Yes, 78 now.
38. HER HONOUR: Yes, turning 79 shortly, is that right?
39. MR MOORE: Correct, in August.
40. HER HONOUR: Yes, all right. No, I just noted that I hadn't picked up the discrepancy, but that is entirely consistent. Thank you.
41. MR MOORE: Not at all.
42. HER HONOUR: I'll amend the age at the time of the offending in my revised reasons.
43. MR MOORE: May it please.
44. HER HONOUR: All right. Thank you, counsel, we'll adjourn.

[1] Stephens v The Queen [2016] VSCA 121 at [20].

[2] Boulton v The Queen [2014] VSCA 342.