Sentence - plea of guilty - two charges of dangerous driving causing serious injury - limited prior criminal history - delay.
Source
Original judgment source is linked above.
Catchwords
Sentence - plea of guilty - two charges of dangerous driving causing serious injury - limited prior criminal history - delay.
Judgment (9 paragraphs)
[1]
Sentence: Aggregate Sentence of 12 months imprisonment, NPP of 4 months.
[2]
S 6AAA Declaration: TES of 18 months, NPP of 10 months.
[3]
Melissa Jones, a motor vehicle collision between two cars occurred on 14 June 2021, at the Ballarat-Daylesford Road in Gong Gong. You were the driver of one of the cars. The collision was caused when you drove your car over double white lines while travelling around a bend in the road. You have pleaded guilty to two charges of dangerous driving causing serious injury. The maximum penalty for each charge is five years' imprisonment. You were 43 years of age at the time.
On 26 June 2020, you were detected driving with drugs in your system. On 22 August 2020, a traffic infringement notice suspended your licence for six months. On 30 November 2020, you were notified that your licence would be cancelled as you had failed to complete a Drug Behaviour Change Program. You were advised that you were disqualified until you completed the first stage of the program, which was the situation at the time of the accident.
The circumstances of your offending have been provided in the Summary of Prosecution Opening. It is agreed to be an accurate account. A general summary of the facts is as follows:
The driver of the other car, Mr David Jennings, was 71 years of age. He was driving to Daylesford in his Mercedes Benz Sedan with his 51-year-old wife, Ms Emiliana Jennings, and two friends. Ms Jennings was seated behind her husband in the right rear passenger seat at the time.
The section of the Ballarat-Daylesford Road where the collision occurred runs in a north-east to south-west direction with one lane for traffic travelling in either direction, separated by continuous double white lines. The outer edges of the roads were boarded by metal safety railings and natural earth embankments. The overall condition of the bitumen surface was good, and the weather conditions were fine and dry. The relevant speed limit was 80 kilometres per hour, and it is agreed that both you and Mr Jennings were travelling at about that speed.
The collision occurred at around 9.10 am, on a sweeping bend in the roadway. Mr Jennings was driving up the hill in the north-easterly direction. As he approached the bend, he moved his car slightly to the right to pass a cyclist who was riding along the left side of the road. Mr Jennings remained on the correct side of the double lines. Another car was travelling several car lengths in front of him.
You had driven from Numurkah that morning in a Holden Sedan. You were travelling in a south-westerly direction as you approached the left sweeping bend from the opposite direction. You were in the correct lane as you passed the car that was several lengths in front of Mr Jennings' car. However, after you passed that car, you travelled across the double white lines and caused a collision with Mr Jennings' vehicle. The front righthand side of your car collided with the front righthand side of Mr Jennings' car. The force of the impact caused your car to roll onto its roof and slide approximately 30 metres down the roadway. Mr Jennings' car was pushed approximately 90 degrees and came to rest against an embankment on the side of the road. Photographs of the damage to the vehicles have been provided. The impact on Mr Jennings' car resulted in him hitting the cyclist and knocking him off his bike. Fortunately, he was not injured.
As a result of the collision, Mr Jennings and his wife were both seriously injured. Mr Jennings was trapped with his upper legs being pinned against the dashboard. The other occupants of the car initially remained there as they were suffering chest, neck and head pain. You were able to remove yourself from your car and remained at the scene.
Shortly after the collision police, paramedics and members of the emergency services attended. Mr Jennings was extricated from his car and airlifted to the Royal Melbourne Hospital. Both you and the other occupants of his car were transported by ambulance to hospitals in Ballarat. When police initially attended the scene, they wrongly assessed that Mr Jennings was responsible for crossing the double white lines. Regrettably, their view was reproduced in the local newspaper.
You were interviewed by police while in hospital and it is not suggested that you were injured. You admitted that you did not hold a valid licence at the time, as it had been cancelled. When asked if you had used any illicit drugs prior to the collision, you admitted that you had used cannabis four or five days ago. You told the police that you had driven from Numurkah that morning and at the time of the collision you stated that your car was on the correct side of the road. A sample of your blood was taken at the hospital. Subsequent analysis detected methamphetamine in the sample with a reading of 0.32 mg/L.
On 11 April 2022, you were interviewed regarding your blood sample analysis. You admitted that at least 12 hours before the collision you had about a point (0.10 grams) of methamphetamine. You stated that you did not think that the methamphetamine had any effect on your driving and that after you had taken it you were more focussed for about a maximum of two hours. You told police that you went to sleep at about midnight and left Numurkah at about 4.30 am. You maintained your view that you were in the correct lane at the time of the collision.
On 12 November 2022, a passenger in Mr Jennings' car made a police statement. It included that, at some stage, he had provided police with dashcam footage that was recovered from Mr Jennings' vehicle. The collision was captured on the footage which reveals that your vehicle travelled over the continuous double white lines on the sweeping bend to cause the collision and therefore you were responsible for the accident.
Mr Jennings was admitted to the Royal Melbourne Hospital on 14 June 2021 and treated for the following injuries:
[4]
(a) Surgery to the transverse fractures of the right upper and lower femoral shafts. Further surgery was required on 23 December 2021 as the fractures were not healing properly.
(b) Surgery for the fracture of the right tibial plafond on 14 and 23 June 2021. In October 2021, Mr Jennings still suffered from ankle stiffness and pain. Imaging showed broken metal and non-union.
(c) Surgery for right elbow fracture/radial neck fracture on 23 June 2021. A right radial head was inserted. In October 2021, Mr Jennings was still suffering pain in his right elbow, and he was booked in for removal of the radial head replacement.
(d) Bilateral rib fractures and a left fifth metatarsal shaft fracture which were all treated conservatively.
[5]
Mr Jennings underwent right ankle fusion and removal of metalware from his right knee in November 2022 and surgery to remove metalware in his right elbow in May 2023. There is evidence of arthritic disease in multiple joints which is likely to progress and there is a high likelihood of long-term deterioration to the right knee, right ankle and foot.
According to the recent medical material, the author opined that there was evidence of blunt trauma to the arm and leg, resulting in an extensive injury constellation of multiple complex factures. The multiple bone fractures were significant, required multiple complex surgeries and have caused significant pain. Mr Jennings' injuries have taken an extended time to fully heal, and his significant pain and impaired mobility have persisted.
Mr Jennings initially stayed in hospital for three weeks and has undergone numerous surgeries since 2021. His injuries are likely to require more major surgery. Mr Jennings recalls that he has undergone surgery 13 times and that he is currently awaiting two further surgeries.[1] He struggles with day-to-day activities, pain and mobility. His injuries have had a lifelong impact on his quality of life, although fortunately they do not appear to be immediately life threatening.
Ms Jennings was transferred from the hospital in Ballarat to the Royal Melbourne Hospital where she remained for four days. CT scans revealed that she suffered transverse process fractures in the C6 and C7 of her vertebrae, which were treated with soft collar and physiotherapy. She had multiple fractures to her left and right ribs, a Grade 2 liver laceration and free fluid was detected in her abdominal cavity, which cleared up within one month. She has received treatment and assessment since that time. A few weeks later, she developed pulmonary embolism. If untreated, it is a life-threatening injury. She has, however, been treated with anticoagulation medication.
She has developed chronic pain in her neck, shoulder, lower back and hip, requiring treatment. Post-traumatic stress symptoms have also developed. After the accident she has been very emotional, unable to drive and had severe anxiety, requiring psychological treatment and medication. She was assessed by a psychiatrist on 1 August 2022 and diagnosed with having developed an adjustment disorder with anxious and depressed mood with features of traumatism. In September 2023, medical examination revealed that while her physical injuries have technically healed, she grapples with chronic pain likely to stem from the aggravated cervical and lumber degeneration and that she may suffer from chronic pain syndrome. She had not suffered from mental health issues prior to the collision. It has been concluded that Ms Jennings' life has undergone a significant transformation since the accident occurred.
Mr and Mrs Jennings attended the plea hearing_._ Victim impact statements were tendered and read to the court by a family member_.[2]_
Mr Jennings describes that although four years have passed, every day is shaped by the consequences of the accident. Its impact continues and he does not expect to ever fully recover given that his excruciating pain is persistent. His initial isolation was devastating, particularly as Covid restrictions were still in place. He has been unable to continue with his work as a driver or with his exercise. His previously active and social lifestyle has ceased. His car was written off and although the insurance company paid out the claim, he was not able to afford a similar vehicle. The further cost has placed additional strain on him. His restricted ability to drive and travel has taken a heavy toll on the family finances and their social lives. This incident remains a central part of his life which has been altered in numerous ways, and the impact continues to be 'felt deeply' by him and his wife.[3]
Ms Jennings describes that this incident has deeply affected her mental and emotional wellbeing, as anxiety haunts her. Pain and discomfort have taken a toll on her and her sleep deprivation has become a constant battle. She has not been able to continue her employment as a childcare worker and while the TAC provides compensation, it is not equivalent to the amount she previously earned, resulting in financial instability. The repercussions of the accident resulted in her being unable to travel to visit her mother before she died or to attend her sister-in-law's funeral. The vibrant and socially active lifestyle that was spent by her and her husband in the past has not continued. In her view, the reality is that she still lives in the shadow of this event and the damage cannot be undone.
The significant effect of your offending on Mr and Mrs Jennings is clear. Your conduct has caused them profound and enduring pain, suffering and emotional trauma. It has an ongoing impact as they continue to suffer significant consequences from the serious injuries. The effects of this accident, including the content of the victim impact statements, are not in dispute. I hope that the victims' paths will become more positive in the future. I take the victim impact statements into account.
You have pleaded guilty to serious charges. Your counsel concedes as much. You did not have a valid driver's licence at the time. Your offending conduct was captured on dash cam footage, which I have viewed. You were not travelling at an excessive speed, and it was a clear day. It discloses that you did not keep a proper lookout as you veered across the double white lines. The four people in Mr Jennings' car, as well as the bike rider, were all placed at a high risk of injury as a result of the collision. Neither you or Mr Jennings had time to brake or swerve away from each other, as your dangerous driving occurred for a short period of time, immediately resulting in the accident. The collision caused extensive damage to both cars and significant injuries to the victims here. You remained at the scene after the collision occurred.
While it is conceded that the objective gravity of this collision is serious, you have been unable to provide an explanation for the offence. When you first spoke to police, you stated that you went to bed at midnight and slept until 4.30 am. In a recent psychological assessment, you said that you woke up at 5.30 am. You also told the psychologist that you were distressed about issues with your ex-husband and that you were crying when the collision occurred.
I am required to consider the effects of methamphetamine on your ability to drive. A forensic physician employed by the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine was engaged and gave evidence at a s198B hearing on 3 February 2025. He opined that the level of methamphetamine found in your blood, being 0.32 mg/L, is a high level. He stated there is a strong probability that there is a causal link or a clear correlation between the effect of methamphetamine and your impaired driving. He believes that if you had not taken methamphetamine, you would not have driven as you did. He opined that the level of methamphetamine found in your blood was biologically significant and that it was likely to have impacted your ability to drive. He noted that the fact that you drifted over the central double lines onto the incorrect side of the road could be attributed to the impairing effects of methamphetamine or the rebound effects of that drug. The doctor concluded that you would have been incapable of having proper control of your motor vehicle. I am satisfied, beyond reasonable doubt, that your consumption of methamphetamine was a causally connecting factor to the collision. Other contributing factors being your limited sleep and your distress all led to your distraction and lack of attention. I consider that your moral culpability is relatively high and that the charges fall within a mid-range of seriousness.
The delay in the finalisation of this case is not solely due to the fact that you elected to contest the charges. The incident occurred on 14 June 2021, and you first spoke to police on the same day. Subsequent investigation proceeded, including an analysis of your blood sample. At some stage after the collision, dashcam footage was provided to police. The charges against you were initiated on 9 May 2023, almost two years after the event, being negligently cause serious injury [x3] and the alternative charges of drive in a manner dangerous causing serious injury [x3]. There has never been an issue that Mr Jennings suffered a serious injury, and you offered to plead guilty to dangerous driving causing serious injury to him in April 2024. Your offer was refused by the prosecution. On 9 August 2024, your matter did proceed to a contested committal which was dealt with as a submission only hearing. You were discharged of committing alternative offences against one passenger and committed to stand trial on the alternative charges against the two victims here.
A case assessment hearing on 13 December 2024 included defence issues about whether sufficient medical material was available to determine the relevant injury related to Ms Jennings. A s 198B hearing proceeded on 3 February 2025 after updated medical material was provided. Soon after this hearing, the current prosecutor and your counsel engaged in negotiations and your matter resolved in May 2025. Your guilty plea was entered on 4 June 2025, approximately one month before the trial was listed. It appears that the reason it has taken two years for this to occur relates to the availability of appropriate evidence to justify the threshold of the injury suffered by Ms Jennings. The final determination of the charge against her occurred after medical evidence was updated. The guilty plea also related to whether the prosecution was prepared to accept that the less serious charge against Mr Jennings was applicable.
I accept that you must have suffered considerable anxiety about the potential outcome of this case, which has been a heavy burden on you. You are aware of the risk of incarceration, which was hanging over your head for a lengthy period and have not reoffended while on bail. I accept that the overall delay of approximately four years has been a source of stress for you. I take the delay into account and accept that it requires a level of mitigation on your sentence. There is no suggestion that there has been a deliberate delay in the resolution of this case. I am aware that the delay has also been a source of anxiety for the victims, and I take that into account.
Your guilty pleas to the current indictment were entered at a relatively early stage and they have a significant utilitarian benefit. You have saved the court and the community the time and expense of running a trial and the victims have not been required to give evidence. Your guilty plea has facilitated the efficient administration of justice. I consider the utilitarian benefit of your plea to be enhanced by the fact that you offered to plead guilty to one of the current offences in April 2024. Your plea of guilty shows that you have accepted responsibility for your criminal conduct. I accept that your guilty plea can be properly used as evidence of your remorse. It is clear that you regret your actions and not just the situation that you now find yourself in. Importantly, you provided an undated letter that was read out to the court upon your plea,[4] where you directly expressed your regret and remorse to Mr and Mrs Jennings. You acknowledged how difficult it must be for them to deal with the harm you caused, and you take full responsibility for the accident. You realise the pain and suffering that they have undergone has caused disruption to their lives. You understand that while an apology cannot erase what has happened, you hope that they will find peace and achieve recovery. It is clear that the impact of your conduct has a heavy burden on you and that you are truly sorry.
I turn now to your personal circumstances. You were born in Victoria in July 1977 and are now 48 years of age. You are the eldest in a sibship of three. You were raised in Warrnambool in a stable family environment. You maintain a close relationship with your parents, who are still together. You did not undergo any emotional or behavioural problems in your formative years.
You reported an average academic performance and after completing Year 12 you did a four-year apprenticeship and have been employed as a chef since that time. You ceased your most recent employment in January 2025 as the venue where you worked, closed. You have had difficulty in securing further employment as you remain unlicensed. A condition of your bail includes that you are not to drive a motor vehicle. You are currently in receipt of Centrelink payments.
You have been in four significant relationships over your lifetime. After leaving home at the age of 19, you engaged in two relationships. You then commenced a further relationship which lasted for 13 years. You were married in March 2008 and have four children together aged 11, 13, 17 and 19. Although the relationship was initially positive, it soon became tumultuous. You experienced family violence. Both you and your husband were alcoholics. You were a respondent in a family violence intervention order in 2017, and your relationship ended in August 2019, when another family violence intervention order was issued excluding you from your home. This was a difficult breakup as you had no contact with your children for two years after your separation. Your two eldest children have now returned to reside with you, and you maintain contact with the younger two children.
You are now in another relationship and your current partner was present at your plea hearing. Your parents and another good friend were also present. You are most fortunate that they maintain their love and support for you.
Turning to your substance use, you dabbled in the use of alcohol between the ages of 16 to 29. Once you commenced the relationship with your former partner you reported consuming up to three litres of wine or a slab of beer daily for the duration of your 13-year relationship. You drank alcohol during your marriage to cope with your former partner's demands and temper. During the last two years of the relationship, you and your former partner attended AOD counselling in an attempt to manage alcoholism. You stopped drinking shortly after you separated and have only occasionally consumed alcohol since 2020.
You have used cannabis, being approximately one gram daily, since the age of 19. While you continue to smoke cannabis, you have reduced your use to one gram per week over the past three years, as your current partner does not use cannabis. You have tried MDMA and cocaine in the past. I am told you began to smoke methamphetamine at the age of 43, being recreational in a peer circle, six months after you separated from your husband. You reported weekend use of methamphetamine between 2020 and 2023. As I have stated, you had consumed methamphetamine prior to this incident.
You have a limited prior criminal history, being the contravention of a family violence intervention order in 2017 and 2021. You were placed on undertakings to be of good behaviour for each of these offences, firstly without, and secondly with conviction. Your VicRoads history includes unlicensed driving and exceeding the prescribed concentration of alcohol in 2003. A traffic infringement notice for driving while prescribed concentration of drugs were present in your blood or oral fluid, was imposed on 22 August 2020. Your loss of licence is related to this, as you were disqualified after you failed to complete a Drug Behaviour Change Program.
At the request of your solicitor, you participated in an assessment with psychologist, Ms Sandra Cokorilo. She has provided a report to the court dated 27 July 2025, where much of your background is contained. You have never been diagnosed with a major psychiatric or mental illness, nor received any psychological or pharmacological treatment. You are currently in good health.
In the report, Ms Cokorilo discussed your offending circumstances with you. You reported that on the day before the incident you had taken your younger children back to their father's home. You became distressed as you realised that your former partner had a new partner who had moved into the home where you lived prior to your separation. You reported that you then visited a friend with whom you consumed a couple of alcohol beverages and 0.1 grams of methamphetamine over the course of that day. You then went home at midnight and slept until 5.30 am.[5] You were still distressed when you woke up and left to drive to Ballarat. You stated that you do not know how you crossed double lines on the road, but recalled during the drive you became distressed and were crying when the collision occurred.[6] Although you initially engaged in minimisation and rationalisation of the offending, you acknowledged to Ms Cokorilo that you were not fit to drive at the time, admitted your wrongdoing and expressed remorse for your actions. You stated that you have not driven since and noted that you have often thought about the victims and the impact on their lives. In her assessment, Ms Cokorilo found that you presented as generally remorseful for your behaviour.[7]
In her opinion, while simultaneously the loss of your home, marriage and the custody of your children could reasonably be expected to cause a psychological destabilisation, you reported resolution of anxiety and alcoholism and denied that subsequent methamphetamine use served as a self-medication function. Rather, it represented a recreational outlet with your peer group at the time.[8] Your reported psychosocial history suggests psychological resilience and stability in the face of significant stressors, and you deny any recent or current mental health problems. Therefore, you would not likely experience incarceration as disproportionately burdensome.[9] It is also suggested that you may benefit from a brief episode of psychological counselling to address your avoidant coping style and support development of more functional coping strategies.[10]
In Ms Cokorilo's view, you are assessed as a low risk of recidivism and your risk of general re-offending is considered low. You have expressed appropriate levels of remorse and victim empathy. In her opinion you may benefit from participation in a driving program aimed at promoting safe driving practices and increasing risk awareness.[11] Although you underwent distress around the time of the collision, you do not meet the threshold of a mental health disorder.[12]
You stopped driving after this collision, and this is enforced by a bail condition not to drive a motor vehicle. You have not committed any offences since this incident occurred and have complied with your bail conditions, which demonstrates some rehabilitation. I accept that your prospects have improved. You have no outstanding matters before the court.
Your counsel has submitted that your prospects of rehabilitation are largely contingent on your ability to remain drug free and that a disposition involving appropriate rehabilitation and supervision, to continue on your path to redemption, would be beneficial. Ultimately the defence submission is that a Community Correction Order would adequately address all relevant sentencing considerations. The prosecution position is that a term of imprisonment with a head sentence and non-parole period is the appropriate disposition.
An assessment for a Corrections order was undertaken on 1 August 2025, and you engaged appropriately. You accepted responsibility for your actions and demonstrated victim insight and remorse. You reported that you made a 'stupid decision' to drive on that day and that your actions have 'wrecked people's lives'. Although you have not driven since the accident, your long-term goal is to regain your licence. You continue to use cannabis, have been abstinent from methamphetamine for around six months and alcohol for around five years. You have supportive friends and family, and your eldest children currently reside with you. You have been assessed as a medium risk of general re-offending. You indicate that you are willing to comply with a Corrections order and have been found suitable for such an order.
After careful consideration, I am unable to accept your counsel's submission. In assessing the gravity of your offending, I am troubled by your consumption of methamphetamine and its contribution to the offending, as well as the seriousness of the injuries. I am obliged to impose a sentence that is proportionate to your criminal conduct. The offences fall within a mid-range of seriousness. The objective gravity and moral culpability are of key importance when determining the appropriate sentence here. General deterrence must be given significant weight in the sentencing process, as must the factors of denunciation and punishment. The community expects that those who elect to engage in driving while affected by drugs must be punished and denounced for their offending. Specific deterrence still has some role to play in light of your previous circumstances, notwithstanding that you have not reoffended and that your prospects have improved. I consider that a head sentence and non-parole period is the only appropriate disposition.
I take into account the maximum penalty for these offences and the current sentencing practices. I have considered the cases to which I was referred in the course of the plea.[13] A number of them had the Worboyes[14] discount and they can be distinguished from this case. The principle of totality is relevant, and I have taken care not to doubly punish you for these offences. I will reflect the lengthy delay that I have referred to when imposing the head sentence and particularly the non-parole period. I consider that it is a significant mitigating factor in your favour.
Given that you have committed the two offences which are founded on the same facts and in effect form part of the one course of conduct, I intend to impose an aggregate sentence. Balancing all these factors as best I can, you are convicted and sentenced to an aggregate sentence of 12 months' imprisonment. I fix a non-parole period of four months. You have not served any pre-sentence detention.
It is conceded that your driver's licence must be disqualified for a minimum period of 18 months. I will not extend this period, in light of the bail condition that you are not to drive. Pursuant to the Sentencing Act,[15] I find that the offences were committed while you were under the influence of drugs which contributed to the offences.
Your licence is cancelled, and you are disqualified for a period of 18 months. That will commence today.
The declaration I make under s 6AAA is had the matter not proceeded as a plea of guilty, I would have imposed a total effective sentence of 18 months' imprisonment with a non-parole period of 10 months.