DPP v Miller

1. Ms Yengi told police that she had only met you on the day of the collision and that she had asked you to drive her home. She said that at the time of the collision you had just come from a house about six minutes' drive away.
2. A reconstruction expert provided an opinion based on inspecting the scene and other evidence. The damage was considered to be consistent with a frontal impact by the Jeep into the passenger side of the Toyota Corolla. The expert was of the opinion that the Jeep was travelling at 129km/hr about one second before impact, slowing down to about 95km/hr on impact. The Toyota was, at that time, travelling about 26km/hr.
3. Crash data from the Jeep's airbag control module indicated that, over the bulk of the five seconds of data available before impact with the Toyota, the Jeep travelled at between 108 kph and 129 kph. The accelerator pedal was engaged 100% and the engine at full throttle. There were only minor corrective steering inputs. Five seconds beforehand, the Jeep was about 165 metres away from the impact point. About 1.1 seconds prior to impact, the accelerator pedal was at zero, and there was steering input consistent with right-hand steering. The speed remained at 129 kph. About one second prior to impact, the brakes were applied and the right-hand steering input increased to 37 degrees. At 0.9 seconds before impact, speed started to decrease. At 0.4 second before impact, there was a steering input to the left. By 0.1 second before impact, the Jeep was travelling at 102 kph. The brake remained on. At impact, the Jeep was travelling at 95 kph.

1. About 8.30 p.m. on Wednesday 3 July 2024 police officers executed a search warrant at your home and you were arrested. When asked for your phone, you falsely told police you had lost it the week before. Police found and seized a mobile phone belonging to you hidden in a drawer under your bed.
2. You were interviewed from 12.22 a.m. on Thursday 4 July 2024 at St Kilda Police Station. You exercised your right to make no comment. You agreed to provide your fingerprints. You did not consent to provide a DNA sample. You were charged and remanded overnight to appear the next day at the Children's Court at Melbourne.
3. You were granted bail but on 9 July 2024 you were arrested due to non-compliance with your bail conditions. Bail was revoked on 10 July 2024. On 29 July 2024 you were again granted bail.

1. You are now 18 years of age and were 17 at the time of your offending.

1. You were born and raised in Melbourne and are the eldest child of two. You have a younger brother, Joshua.[7]
2. Your father is a teacher and your mother is a psychotherapist at a secondary school. Your parents separated in 2016. Initially you lived with both parents in a shared care arrangement, however, due to conflict with your father's parenting style, you have lived with your mother since April 2024. Whilst you had ceased contact with your father, contact resumed around Christmas 2024.
3. You have a girlfriend, Emma[8], and regard your relationship with her as a positive and supportive one.
4. In 2023 you witnessed your paternal grandmother suffer a stroke from which she subsequently passed away. In October 2024, your cousin committed suicide.

1. You attended primary school but suffered poor concentration and difficulties processing auditory information.
2. You started secondary school in 2020. Your initial high school years suffered significant disruption by the Covid 19 pandemic.
3. You left your school after your offending, following the extensive media reporting that resulted.
4. At the start of this year you started at a new school in North Melbourne four days a week.

1. You first smoked cannabis in year seven and used it occasionally in years eight and nine. In year ten you were using it daily. You continue to use it on a daily basis, smoking less than a gram a day.
2. You used ecstasy (MDMA) towards the end of year ten and used it occasionally until year eleven. You had been using it regularly in the lead-up to the offending, including on the day of the offending. I am told this was outside your usual pattern of use.

1. You were diagnosed with ADHD at the age of 14, having developed symptoms including issues with attention and concentration, significant challenges at school, and elevated impulsivity and hyperactivity. A cognitive assessment at the time reported an average full-scale IQ of 98. You were trialled on various medications with limited success due to adverse reactions.
2. In May of 2024 you reported symptoms of depression. You were provided with medication, but again received limited benefit from it.
3. You underwent a neurological assessment by Ms Laura Scott earlier this year. She noted that you presented with a mild to moderate weakness in working memory and executive functions. She found a full-scale IQ of 86, which was weaker than the 2021 result. She regarded it possible that your current symptoms of psychological distress and challenging personal circumstances were dampening your cognitive performance.
4. You were also assessed by Dr. Adam Deacon, who stated that, '[your] complex history of neurodevelopmental vulnerabilities, social anxiety, low self-esteem, and difficulties fostering enduring secure bonds with [your] peers, predisposed [you] to migrating towards an anti-social peer group where [you] felt [you] belonged'. However, he does not regard your adopted anti-social identity as being rigidly ingrained.
5. He described you as an anxious young man who is suitably humbled by the gravity of your offences.

1. I move now to assessing the gravity of the offending, most particularly in relation to the culpable driving charge.
2. At the time of the offending you were not licenced and had never held a licence. Accordingly, you should never have been driving at all. However, I am cognisant of the fact that you face a separate charge for unlicensed driving and that I must avoid doubly punishing you for that aspect.
3. I note, in relation to the unlicensed driving, that you drove the vehicle throughout a significant part of the day and across multiple suburbs carrying a varying number of passengers.
4. As to the events leading up to the collision itself, you were an inexperienced driver, driving at high speed approaching the intersection of Warrigal and Highbury Roads. There were a number of other road-users present. As I have noted, at 1.1 seconds prior to impact your speed was 129 kph on a road where the applicable speed limit was 60 kph. Not only were you travelling at this highly excessive speed, but you did so in the face of your passengers crying out for you to slow down or stop. The danger was obviously clear to them and must have been clear to you. You proceeded nonetheless.
5. I note that there is material indicating that at the time of this offending you had taken MDMA. Dr. Deacon states that your MDMA use "appears to have been a significant contributory factor in the offence given the marked mind-altering impact". He goes on to say that your experience with MDMA prior to the offence was relatively limited.
6. I have already briefly outlined the history of your use of ecstasy prior to the offending, but, no matter what your experience level with the substance, the voluntary and conscious consumption of mind-altering drugs prior to driving a motor vehicle can only serve to increase your level of culpability.
7. On the other hand, I note Dr. Deacon's opinion that your ADHD can be 'considered to be a contributing factor to the extent that [you are] more prone to reduced impulse control and poorly considered decision-making'. That is a matter that needs to be taken into account in relation to assessing your moral culpability.
8. Taking into account all of these matters, I regard your culpable driving as a serious example of the offence and, even having factored in the effects of your ADHD, I regard your moral culpability as high. I draw the same conclusion with respect to the reckless conduct charge.
9. Subsequent to the collision you absconded from the scene, giving rise to charge 5, failing to render assistance.
10. I can accept that there was an element of panic in your absconding. The descriptions of you by witnesses appear to bear out that conclusion. Again, your culpability must be assessed in light of how your ADHD may have affected your decision making. On the other hand, even prior to the collision you had been aware of, and concerned about, the possibility of being apprehended by police, as is evidenced by your tracking of the police airwing at 5:38 and 5:56 p.m. So, whilst panic and impulsivity may have played a part in your fleeing the scene, your flight also served a logical purpose: to avoid responsibility for your acts.
11. You had been driving a stolen vehicle and, as a result, by leaving the scene you had reason to hope to avoid having the police connect you with the vehicle and thus the offending.
12. In the circumstances, this is a serious example of this offence and, again, your moral culpability, though modified to some extent, remains high.

1. I was provided with five Victim Impact Statements. They each spoke eloquently of the effects of the loss of William Taylor upon those who loved him. The depth of the loss expressed in those statements is profound, and stands in stark contrast to whatever transient joy or pleasure you derived from driving fast in traffic.

1. You entered an early plea of guilty which meant that there was no committal hearing in this matter. By your plea you have accepted responsibility for your offending and have facilitated the course of justice. You must receive a palpable sentencing discount as a result.

1. Your counsel eschewed reliance on the principles contained in R v Verdins[9]. However, as I have already stated, I have taken into consideration the effects of your ADHD upon your decision-making abilities and, as a result, your level of moral culpability.

1. General deterrence must play a significant role in sentencing for offending such as this.[10] This is so notwithstanding your youth. Regrettably, this sort of offending is all too often carried out by young drivers, particularly young men. Any sentence for offending of this sort must send a clear message to anyone, particularly young, inexperienced drivers, who contemplate using a motor vehicle in a like manner.

Specific deterrence and prospects of rehabilitation

1. I have mentioned that you have no criminal record for the purposes of this sentence. I was informed that after this offending, on 4 December 2024, you were sentenced in the Children's Court to a 9-month good behaviour bond without conviction, after pleading guilty to theft from a shop and unlicensed driving (both committed on 11 February 2024) and theft of a motor vehicle (committed on 21 May 2024). I understand these offences to be manifestations of your behaviour during the period that you were said to be keeping bad company.
2. As I have mentioned, Dr. Deacon takes the view that your adopted anti-social identity is not rigidly ingrained at this point. Further, he described you as presenting as genuinely contrite within the limitations of your capacity to communicate your feelings. This observation was echoed by your de facto step mother, Ashlee Baldwin,[11] in her letter to the court. She said that you had expressed genuine remorse and regret for your actions. She also stated that you had taken time to reflect on the impact of your decisions.
3. Her letter was one of a number that were provided to me from your family and friends. Those letters paint a picture of a young man who has the potential to develop into a useful and contributing member of society. In addition, those letters indicate that you are well supported by those around you.
4. Whilst specific deterrence remains a relevant consideration, I accept that your prospects of rehabilitation are generally good and that, as a result, the need to deter you from offending in future is reduced.

1. I have said that general deterrence plays a significant role notwithstanding your youth. However, that is not to suggest that your youth is an irrelevant consideration. The Court of Appeal acknowledged in Cairns v The Queen that for the purposes of sentencing a youthful offender, generally speaking, the greater the seriousness of the crime, the more the mitigating influence of youth is diminished. But the court noted that it is not completely eliminated.[12] Accordingly, I take into account the fact that you were a child when you committed these offences as a significant matter in mitigation.

1. The maximum penalties for the offences to which you have pleaded are as follows:
   • Theft - 10 years' imprisonment;
   • Reckless conduct endangering life - 10 years' imprisonment;
   • Culpable driving causing death - 20 years' imprisonment;
   • Failure to render assistance - 10 years' imprisonment;
   • Unlicensed driving - 6 months imprisonment and/or 60 penalty units.
2. Culpable driving causing death is a standard sentence offence, however, as a result of the fact that you were under the age of 18 at the time of the offence, the standard sentence regime does not apply in this case.

1. I was provided with a number of comparable cases that I have had regard to in formulating the sentence that I will impose.[13] I have also made a broader assessment of comparable cases (excluding those where the standard sentencing regime applies) in order to obtain an overview of relevant current sentencing practices.
2. I note, of course, that current sentencing practices are a factor that is just one amongst many such factors that must be considered in the sentencing process.

1. I have considered the total effective sentence that I will impose in order to ensure that it is not crushing in nature. And, in doing so, I have again had particular regard to your youth in light of the nature of your offending.
2. I have considered whether a sentence involving a Youth Justice Centre Order was within range. I have concluded that the seriousness of the offending precludes me making such an order. However, having regard to your youth and vulnerability, I do make a recommendation to the Adult Parole Board that it make an order pursuant to section 471 of the Children, Youth and Families Act 2005, directing that you be transferred to serve part or all of your sentence in a Youth Justice Centre. The pre-sentence report obtained from the Department of Justice and Community Safety dated 16 August 2025 should be provided to the Adult Parole Board as soon as possible to assist it in considering whether such an order should be made.

1. After having carefully considered, balanced and weighed all of the relevant sentencing considerations, I sentence as follows

1. I am sentencing you to a total effective sentence (TES) of 7 years and 7 months imprisonment. I declare you must serve 4 years and 6 months before you become eligible for parole.

1. You have served 22 days in custody and that figure will be declared under s.18 of the Sentencing Act 1991 as time having been served under this sentence.

s.6AAA

1. But for your plea of guilty I would have sentenced you to a TES of 9 years with a non-parole period of 5 years and 8 months.

1. Pursuant to section 61(6) of the Road Safety Act 1986, I order that all licences and learner permits held by you (if any) are cancelled and you are disqualified from obtaining a licence or learner permit for a period of 6 years.
2. I make a finding pursuant to section 89C of the Sentencing Act 1991 that the offence was committed while you were under the influence of a drug which contributed to the offence.

[9] (2007) 16 VR 295.

[10] DPP v Neethling [2009] 22 VR 446.

[12] [2018] VSCA 333 at [42].

[13] Cairns v The Queen op. cit.; DPP v Guilford [2024] VCC 1438; DPP v Gallagher [2021] VCC 1528; DPP v Hill [2012] VSCA 144; and Fuller v The Queen [2013] VSCA 186.