DPP v Stacey [2022] VCC 406

• Dangerous driving causing serious injury - five years' imprisonment; and
• Commit indictable offence while on bail - 30 penalty units or three months' imprisonment.

4 Leave is granted to the prosecution to amend the surnames of the complainants in Charges 1 and 2 on Indictment No. L12762961 by substituting the correct spelling for the surname Blakeley as B‑l‑a‑k‑e‑l‑e‑y.

5 In the evening of 24 November 2020, John and Deborah Blakeley left their home in Toorak to go for a walk to the shops at the Toorak Village. At about 9.00pm, Mr and Mrs Blakeley commenced their walk home. They walked on the footpath on the north side of Toorak Road. They approached the pedestrian crossing located between Irving Road and Myoora Road. This pedestrian crossing is controlled by a set of traffic control signals which, when activated, causes the vehicles travelling on Toorak Road to stop so as to allow pedestrians to cross Toorak Road safely.

6 Mr Blakeley pressed the button on the traffic control signals and he and his wife waited for the traffic control signals to change so that they could cross Toorak Road. Mr Blakeley saw that the vehicles on Toorak Road began to slow down and then stop at the crossing. The traffic control signals displayed the green man, so Mr and Mrs Blakeley started to cross Toorak Road. They were about halfway across the crossing when you drove across the crossing against the red light and struck them with your Holden Commodore utility. You had been driving east along Toorak Road and despite other vehicles being stopped at the crossing, you did not stop. The impact of your collision with Mr and Mrs Blakeley knocked them both off their feet. Each sustained serious injuries.

7 After the collision, you stopped your vehicle a short distance beyond the crossing and remained at the scene.

8 Police and ambulance services attended at the scene. Mr and Mrs Blakeley were taken to hospital by ambulance.

9 The police conducted a preliminary breath test on you. The test indicated the presence of alcohol in your breath. You were then taken to the Prahran Police Station, where a blood sample was taken from you. You were then lodged in the police cells, where you became quite agitated and aggressive. You were subsequently assessed as unfit for interview and were remanded in custody.

10 A reconstruction report of the collision was obtained. The report noted that at the time of collision the road was dry. The traffic control signals at the crossing were found to be operating properly. The estimated speed of your vehicle at the time of the collision was between 44 and 52 kilometres per hour. The speed limit for Toorak Road at the point of the collision is 60 kilometres per hour.

11 The toxicology report indicated that at the time of the collision, present in your blood were alcohol (0.104g/100ml), THC (~7ng/ml), diazepam (0.5mg/L), nordiazepam (~0.20mg/L) and temazepam (~0.05mg/L).

12 The police also obtained an Impairment Report, where Dr Gaya, forensic physician, opined that the combination of alcohol and drugs you consumed would have rendered you incapable of having proper control of a motor vehicle.

13 On 9 February 2021, you attended at the Prahran Police Station, where a record of interview was conducted. During the interview, you admitted to driving and to colliding with Mr and Mrs Blakeley.

14 You told police that you had had some drinks during the day and that you decided to go out and get some more, thinking that you were under the limit and okay to drive. You said that you were on your way home and were almost there when the incident happened.

15 You explained that you were slowing down to turn into your driveway. You said that you were sure the light applicable to you was green when Mr and Mrs Blakeley stepped out into your path. You said that you applied the brakes as soon as you saw them. You claimed the collision was a complete accident, and apologised for hurting Mr and Mrs Blakeley.

16 When asked about your alcohol intake that day, you agreed that you had consumed between six and eight beers over the course of the afternoon. You also stated that "ages ago" you had used cannabis. When the reconstruction evidence was put to you, you disagreed that you were travelling at between 44 and 52 kilometres per hour at the point of impact.

17 You told police that you take Valium (diazepam) on prescription and that since 2006, you had been taking it regularly for your anxiety. You said that you had not taken any prescription medication that day, but could have taken it the previous day or night. You denied that your driving was impaired by the combination of alcohol and drugs.

18 At the time of the collision, Deborah Blakeley was aged 67 years. She was taken by ambulance to The Alfred hospital, where, upon examination, it was found that she had sustained a fractured left knee, a broken collarbone, seven broken ribs, a broken right leg, damage to several vertebrae and a snapped tendon in her left ring finger.

19 Mrs Blakeley was admitted into the Intensive Care Unit. She underwent multiple surgeries over the following week to treat her injuries. She had seven screws and plates inserted into her collarbone.

20 On 8 December 2020, after two weeks in hospital, Mrs Blakeley was transferred to Epworth Rehabilitation to commence inpatient rehabilitation. Her movement was restricted and she required full nursing care. At that time, she expressed modest goals - to achieve independence in feeding, toileting and to increase the functional use of her left hand.

21 Subsequent outpatient appointments were made for Mrs Blakeley at two weeks, six weeks and three-month intervals to review her progress. In March 2021, she underwent further surgery to have a screw removed from her collarbone.

22 At the time of the collision, John Blakeley was aged 72 years.

23 He was taken by ambulance to the Royal Melbourne Hospital.

24 Upon examination, it was found that Mr Blakeley sustained multiple broken ribs, a broken pelvis and two broken ankles. He underwent surgeries for his injuries, including having screws inserted in his ankles.

25 On 30 November 2020, after six days in hospital, Mr Blakeley was transferred to Epworth Rehabilitation to commence inpatient rehabilitation. He was subsequently referred to an outpatient clinic on 12 December 2020 and 14 January 2021.

26 At the time of the collision, you were on bail in relation to a charge of being in possession of cannabis. You were due to appear in the Magistrates' Court at Melbourne on 6 January 2021 to answer that charge.

27 Both Mr and Mrs Blakeley declined to make victim impact statements. Nevertheless, it is clear from their injuries that each has suffered much pain, suffering and disability as a consequence of your actions.

28 Mr J Lavery of counsel appeared on your behalf and made a comprehensive plea in mitigation of penalty. Your counsel conceded the gravity of your offending, however, urged that a number of factors combined to justify releasing you on a community correction order. I now turn to those matters.

29 You are now aged 52 years. You were born in Geelong and have always maintained a positive relationship with your parents, who still live there.

30 You were bullied at school by your brothers' friends, but did not have any significant behavioural or learning problems.

31 You left the family home when you were in your early 20s but would intermittently return to live with your parents. You relocated to Queensland between 1994 and 1998 to complete an apprenticeship. You have maintained stable and consistent employment over the course of your life, working as an electrician since completing your apprenticeship after leaving high school in Year 11.

32 You have had one significant relationship, an on‑again off‑again relationship between 1999 and June 2021, after which you returned to live with your parents in Geelong. The relationship with your ex-partner has been a difficult one. She would frequently evict you from the home and obtain a family violence intervention order, but would then facilitate a reconciliation with you. As a couple, you were unable to have children. The relationship faced many problems, the conflict between you being fuelled by mutual alcohol misuse.

33 You reported a number of traumatic experiences to Ms S Cokorilo, psychologist.[1] In addition to the collision the subject of the current charges, you reported that you were involved as a passenger in a traumatic truck accident in September 2006, during which you sustained multiple fractures. You were trapped in the vehicle and subsequently developed anxiety and panic attacks. You also reported being traumatised by perceived humiliation to which you were subjected by your football coach at age 14. Another traumatic event occurred when you discovered the deceased body of your partner's mother in 2008. You also reported your partner's admission to an intensive care unit in 2005 and her cancer diagnosis, which required subsequent treatment for two years.

34 As a result of a work accident in 2006, you sustained injuries to your neck and sternum. You were prescribed pain medication and were on WorkCover for 18 months until 2008. Since then, you have struggled to maintain full-time employment, partly due to developing a dependence on opioid medication. You estimate that you have been employed for 50 per cent of the time since 2008.

35 You reported to Ms Cokorilo that as a result of the current charges you lost your driver's licence and that this has had a negative impact on your capacity to work. You stated that you have not been employed since June 2021, when your partner terminated your 20-year relationship and you relocated from Melbourne to Geelong. Apparently, you have recently received an offer of employment in Ballarat but are awaiting the outcome of these proceedings before committing to it.

Physical and mental health/Verdins[2] factors

36 Ms Cokorilo referred to your mental health and medical history. You reported to her that you had been diagnosed with a Borderline Personality Disorder by Dr Cunningham in the context of WorkCover involvement in 2008 and 2009.

37 You reported treatment with various antidepressants since the work accident in 2006, but noted limited efficacy. You reported being prescribed opioids and anxiolytics for approximately 12 months after the work accident. You were treated with Xanax until "a few years ago" and have an ongoing prescription for Valium and temazepam, but you use them only when needed.

38 In 2010, you attempted suicide when you were overwhelmed by life circumstances, after having been evicted from your partner's home and then living by yourself in a rental property which you struggled to afford. At this time, you were dealing with addiction to opioids and were self-medicating with alcohol.

39 You stated that in addition to seeing Dr Cunningham, you have seen "too many" mental health professionals over the years, noting you most recently engaged for six sessions with a psychologist in mid-2020 in the context of relationship difficulties, unemployment and the impact of COVID-19.

40 You reported to Ms Cokorilo three psychiatric admissions in 2012 and 2014, when you admitted yourself for alcohol-related problems. In 2010, you were transported by emergency services for an admission after they were contacted by Lifeline, following a call you made to them.

41 You were diagnosed with depression when you presented to a hospital Emergency Department with suicidal ideation following the collision the subject of these proceedings. You have been prescribed mirtazapine, an antidepressant, from September 2021 and have found this useful in managing your sleep disturbance.

42 You reported a history of suicidal ideation, noting persistent thoughts of suicide for six weeks following the collision the subject of the current charges. You believed you had killed the victims and did not think you deserved to live.

43 In addition to your mental health issues, you also suffer from diverticulitis and pancreas damage caused by alcohol.

44 Addressing your alcohol and substance use, Ms Cokorilo noted that you began drinking alcohol at age 17 or 18. You described infrequent and minimal use until your 30s, when you began drinking daily. You reported that your alcohol use did not become problematic until your mid to late 40s, when it began to impact negatively upon your employment. You also described social and infrequent use of cannabis since your 20s. You said that you had tried ecstasy once when you were in your 30s and otherwise you have never had any other illicit drugs.

45 You acknowledged to Ms Cokorilo a problematic relationship with alcohol and explained your desire to attempt abstinence. You had attended a residential alcohol rehabilitation facility on three occasions between 2009 and 2014. You would thereafter abstain for periods of up to 18 months, but would eventually relapse in the context of various psychosocial stressors. You have repeatedly engaged with Alcoholics Anonymous and have had alcohol counselling, most recently in 2021.

46 You told Ms Cokorilo that you use alcohol as a coping mechanism "to mask feelings". You reported that you have only "slipped up a couple of times" since the collision in November 2020, noting that whilst you try your best to abstain from taking alcohol in accordance with your bail conditions, the "cravings get too much".

47 You described to Ms Cokorilo a chronic struggle with alcohol misuse and repeated efforts to manage it. You said that your drinking escalated at times of conflict with your partner with whom you have had an unstable relationship over the past 20 years. You said that although there were no significant external stressors, the period of COVID-19 restrictions was challenging, as you were spending more time at home and there was always underlying anxiety about how your partner may react, as it was her house.

48 You indicated that in the four or five months leading up to the offending, you had maintained a period of abstinence from alcohol. On the day of offending, you consumed alcohol in the context of distress following a dispute with your partner the previous day. The argument continued into the day of the offences. You stated that your partner was verbally abusive that morning and that you had reached a "breaking point" and consumed eight cans of beer between 12.0 pm and 6.00pm. You told Ms Cokorilo that the collision occurred when you headed out to obtain more alcohol at approximately 7.30pm, when you believed you were below the legal limit.

49 Ms Cokorilo conducted a mental state examination of you and conducted psychometric testing. The results were indicative of a severe level of depression. Concerningly, you reported that you had thoughts about death or hurting yourself on several occasions in the previous two weeks.

50 The results of a Generalised Anxiety Disorder assessment (GAD) were indicative of a moderate level of anxiety.

51 The results of a Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) checklist confirmed you meet the requisite number of endorsed symptoms for all criteria required for a diagnosis of PTSD. Your scores indicated, on average, a moderate level of symptomology at the time of the assessment.

52 Personality testing results demonstrated clinical significance on avoidant, melancholic, dependent and masochistic Personality Pattern Syndrome scales. Moderate elevations were noted on schizoid and negativistic scales. On the Severe Personality Pattern scales, your results were elevated to a moderate level on Borderline, Paranoid and Schizotypal scales.

"... personality profile essentially demonstrates an individual with unstable mood, a sense of being unable to trust others, and tendency to prefer social isolation reflective of a desire to protect himself from being hurt by others, as well as due to a belief that he is unlikeable, undeserving, and a burden to others."[3]

54 Your responses reached clinical significance on Generalised Anxiety, Persistent Depression, Major Depression, PTSD, and Drug and Alcohol Use clinical syndrome scales. Moderate elevations were recorded on the Somatic and Schizophrenic scales.

"The findings of this assessment support the diagnosis of a Dependent and Avoidant Personality Disorders, Persistent and Major Depressive Disorder, Generalised Anxiety Disorder and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. Elevations across many clinical and personality scales are indicative of extreme situational distress against the background of significant psychopathology and underlying personality vulnerabilities."[4]

56 Ms Cokorilo found the following diagnoses are indicated:

(i) Clinical disorders - Major Depressive Disorder, recurrent, severe Dependent Personality Disorder, PTSD, Alcohol Use Disorder, in early remission in a controlled environment;

(ii) Personality disorders, traits or Intellectual Impairments - Dependent Personality Disorder, Avoidant Personality Disorder.

57 Ms Cokorilo offered the following psychological opinion:

"90. Mr Stacey is a 52-year-old male presenting with low self-worth, impaired self-concepts and low coping resources since early adolescence. Although he reported a previous diagnosis of Borderline Personality Disorder, in my professional opinion his presentation is better explained by Avoidant and Dependent Personality Disorders. These diagnoses are further supported by the findings of the personality testing employed in the current assessment.

91. Avoidant Personality Disorder is characterised by pervasive pattern of social inhibition, feelings of inadequacy and hypersensitivity to negative evaluation, and is often comorbid with Dependent Personality Disorder as low self-worth and isolation leads to dependence on and attachment to the few people with whom the individual is close, as has been the case with Mr Stacey's ex-partner despite their dysfunctional relationship.

92. Excessive and pervasive need to be taken care of that leads to clingy and submissive behaviours and fears of separation is the hallmark of Dependent Personality Disorder, and thought to have played a key role in Mr Stacey's commitment to the relationship which he acknowledges causes him to feel anxious more often than not, and is a source of instability and distress.

93. Factors inherent in his personality disposition and challenges arising from his volatile relationship are inferred to have led to development of Alcohol Use Disorder, Generalised Anxiety Disorder (GAD) and recurrent episodes of Major Depressive Disorder (MDD). Despite his repeated engagement with AOD and mental health interventions, his alcoholism remained a problem and his psychological functioning was compromised preceding, during and since the offending event. His presentation is now further complicated by presence of posttraumatic symptomatology which has likely been present since his involvement in the motor vehicle accident in 2006, and has undoubtedly been exacerbated by the collision which is the subject of the current matter."[5]

58 In R v Verdins & Ors,[6] the Court of Appeal observed:

"32. Impaired mental functioning, whether temporary or permanent ('the condition'), is relevant to sentencing in at least the following six ways:

1. The condition may reduce the moral culpability of the offending conduct, as distinct from the offender's legal responsibility. Where that is so, the condition affects the punishment that is just in all the circumstances; and denunciation is less likely to be a relevant sentencing objective.

2. The condition may have a bearing on the kind of sentence that is imposed and the conditions in which it should be served.

3. Whether general deterrence should be moderated or eliminated as a sentencing consideration depends upon the nature and severity of the symptoms exhibited by the offender, and the effect of the condition on the mental capacity of the offender, whether at the time of the offending or at the date of sentence or both.

4. Whether specific deterrence should be moderated or eliminated as a sentencing consideration likewise depends upon the nature and severity of the symptoms of the condition as exhibited by the offender, and the effect of the condition on the mental capacity of the offender, whether at the time of the offending or at the date of the sentence or both.[7]

5. The existence of the condition at the date of sentencing (or its foreseeable recurrence) may mean that a given sentence will weigh more heavily on the offender than it would on a person in normal health.

6. Where there is a serious risk of imprisonment having a significant adverse effect on the offender's mental health, this will be a factor tending to mitigate punishment."

59 Your counsel referred to your previous mental health issues and submitted that all six limbs of Verdins are engaged, although he readily conceded the impact of your mental impairment is not at the highest level.

60 The Prosecution accepts that limbs 5 and 6 are engaged but disputes that limbs 1 to 4 are engaged. On behalf of the prosecution, Mr Raimondo contends that these limbs cannot be counted in your favour, because there is no nexus between your impairment and the offending driving. He submits that it was not your impairment that affected your driving, rather, it was your miscalculation about the level of your sobriety and your ability to control your vehicle.

61 In response, Mr Lavery submitted that a combination of both your mental impairment and intoxication contributed to your offending, and in this way, the requisite nexus is established, albeit perhaps indirectly. In this regard, Mr Lavery relied on Ms Cokorilo's opinion:

"94. Mr Stacey's psychopathology is considered relevant to his offending. He presented for counselling in the months leading up to the offending event in the context of relationship difficulties, unemployment and exacerbation of his depressive and anxious symptomology. He consumed alcohol on the day of the offending which has likely contributed to the offence itself. However, it is noted that his alcoholism has likely developed in view of his low coping resources as a maladaptive coping mechanism for unresolved and chronically compromised mental health.

95. He reported that on the day of the offending he consumed alcohol having reached a 'breaking point' in the context of verbal abuse to which he was subjected by his partner. Emotional dysregulation, involving repetitive negative thinking such as worry and rumination, implicated in GAD and MDD, impairs problem-solving and healthy information processing and can lead to an increase in negative emotions and deter prosocial responses, particularly in the absence of meaningful supports.

96. Whilst depression in itself does not directly cause an individual to offend, affective states can alter cognition and behaviour, thus impairing impulse control and decision-making, ability to rationalise, and consider alternative responses. This is due to the neurological changes in the brain caused by depression; a reduction in serotonin can impact the functioning of the prefrontal cortex, responsible for emotional regulation, executive functioning and impulse control.

97. These factors have likely compromised Mr Stacey's reasoning and contributed to the decision to drive. Further, his intoxication with alcohol at the time, would have likely heightened the risk of engaging in impulsive and reckless behaviour, as well as additionally impaired insight, decision-making and judgement."[8]

62 The Court of Appeal in Verdins[9] did not state that in order to be taken into account, impaired mental functioning must be the only or the dominant cause of offending. The question to be determined is whether there is such a nexus and to what extent that impaired mental functioning contributed to the offending. In this way, the Court must make a judgment call about the extent of the impairment, its impact on the offending and how the sentencing exercise is affected.

63 Ms Cokorilo's evidence was not challenged, and I accept it.

64 In my judgment, it is not possible to disentangle your mental impairment from your decision to, in effect, self-medicate by consuming both alcohol and other substances and then drive. Accordingly, I accept that all six limbs of Verdins are engaged, although I am of the view that your mental impairment was but one of the contributing factors prompting your decision to drive.

65 You have admitted to a limited number of prior court appearances and convictions, all of which are quite dated.

66 As mentioned, you pleaded guilty to the charges.

67 A guilty plea, no matter why or when it is entered, must almost always attract a sentencing discount.

68 The matter resolved prior to a committal hearing in the Magistrates' Court at Melbourne, where the case proceeded by way of straight hand-up brief on 29 June 2021. At that time, you indicated your intention to plead guilty.

69 In determining the weight to be given to your plea of guilty, I take into account the following matters:

(a) the timing of your plea, which I accept was indicated very early in the piece;

(b) you are entitled to a statutory discount because of your plea;

(c) you have avoided the cost and inconvenience of a trial. You have spared witnesses the inconvenience and ordeal of giving evidence upon your trial. Importantly, Mr and Mrs Blakeley have been spared the trauma of having to give evidence;

(d) I am satisfied that your plea indicates your remorse; and

(e) there is enormous social utility involved in your guilty plea, and by taking this course, I accept that you have facilitated the course of justice.

70 Dealing with the question of the social utility inherent in your guilty plea, I note that additional weight must be given to this factor because of the impact that the worldwide pandemic of COVID-19 has had on the criminal justice system.[10]

Relevance of COVID-19 over and above social utility

71 In addition to the extra weight that your plea must attract because of COVID-19, I also take account of the potential impact that COVID-19 might have upon the service of a sentence of imprisonment, including:

(a) You may face a higher risk of contracting the disease whilst in custody;[11]

(b) There is an increased likelihood of periods of quarantine or isolation; and

(c) The pandemic may cause additional stress and concern for prisoners and their families, as it is for every member of the community.[12]

72 When examined by Ms A Crole, clinical psychologist at Forensicare, Mental Health Advice and Response Service (MHARS), you showed little insight into your offending, blaming the victims by stating that they were elderly and did not watch where they were going.[13]

73 When interviewed by police, you made some appropriate admissions, although you denied that you were at fault for what you described as an accident.

74 When granted bail in the Magistrates' Court at Melbourne, you were required to participate in the Court Integrated Services Program (CISP). On 26 November 2020, the report assessed your suitability to participate in CISP and noted that you-

"... appeared fixated on denying the current charges ... as [you] frequently stated how the alleged victims 'jumped in front of the car'."[14]

75 During the assessment, you frankly described your struggle with addiction problems:

"During the assessment, Mr Stacey identified his alcohol use to be problematic, having elaborated how he continues to experience cravings and struggles with such. Mr Stacey indicated that he has tried to address his alcohol use in the past but he tends to relapse. Therefore, if bail is granted, Mr Stacey will be referred to the Australian Community Support Organisation (ACSO) for an initial comprehensive assessment to determine his treatment needs in the community and referral for specialised treatment if deemed appropriate."[15]

76 You engaged well through the CISP program. You engaged with the Australian Community Support Organisation (ACSO). The first assessment report from ACSO reveals that you were forthright in detailing your background, your substance abuse and your mental health issues. The report noted your disclosure of a history of substance use. You revealed that you regularly took unprescribed Cannabidiol oil for relaxation. You reported abstinence from alcohol use since your arrest on 24 November 2020. You reported daily alcohol use before your arrest and the primary substance of concern was your alcohol intake.

77 You reported that you first consumed alcohol at age 21 years, with peers at a house party. You described a pattern of "binge drinking" on the weekends for many years. You stated that in your early 30s your alcohol consumption increased to five to ten standard alcoholic drinks daily after work and binge drinking on the weekends. You maintained this pattern up until 2009. You attended a residential rehabilitation facility and abstained from alcohol use for a few months. You have also attended withdrawal units a few times since then and abstained from taking alcohol for a few months each time. You relapsed every time and kept a daily pattern of drinking between twenty and thirty standard drinks "on and off" up until your arrest on 24 November 2020.

78 You commenced smoking cannabis with peers at the age of 26 years. Initially, you smoked a few grams a month through a bong. Your cannabis use increased to smoking one gram daily by the time you were aged 30, a pattern which you maintained on and off until you were 45 years of age. You stated that you have abstained from cannabis use since then. You disclosed, however, that you commenced ingesting unprescribed Cannabidiol oil twelve months earlier for "health benefits and relaxation", maintaining a pattern of ingesting 3 to 5 millilitres twice a week until the date of assessment.

79 In 2007, following a workplace accident in which you sustained neck injuries, you were prescribed a variety of medications for pain, including OxyContin, tramadol, Valium, temazepam, Endone and benzodiazepine, which you took for a period of one year. You developed a dependency on these prescribed medications and maintained a pattern of taking prescribed Valium and temazepam to help you fall asleep and to relax.

80 Apart from the physical injuries sustained in the workplace accident, you were also diagnosed with Depression and an Anxiety Disorder. As a result, you were prescribed Xanax, temazepam and Valium, which you were still taking as at the date of assessment.

81 You showed some insight into the effects of your alcohol and drug use:

"... On reflection of the impact of his substance use, he acknowledged that his health, legal situation, offending behaviour, family relationships, friendship groups and employment had been affected through his use. He attributed curiosity, experimentation, peer group association and influence, escaping reality, suppressing and blocking feelings and thoughts, low coping strategies, stress, aide with sleep, and relaxation as the major factors for his substance use."[16]

82 The ACSO assessment report recommended that you be referred for an episode of Alcohol and Other Drug (AOD) counselling, with an emphasis on harm minimisation and relapse prevention, to assist in your goal of maintaining abstinence from alcohol use and reducing dependence on sedatives and sleeping pills.

83 You engaged well with the treatment plan recommended by ACSO, as was noted in a progress report from ACSO dated 1 April 2021:[17]

"Mr. Stacey demonstrated motivation in treatment by consistently attending scheduled appointments and completing an episode of AOD - Counselling Standard as a condition of Bail - Court Integrated Services Program (CISP) as of March 3, 2021. Mr. Stacey considered AOD Counselling as beneficial and requested an extension (further sessions) as a voluntary client to continue to support relapse prevention and increase self-efficacy.

Mr. Stacey identified alcohol as his primary substance of concern. He demonstrated that he could reflect and acknowledge the impact substance use has had on himself and others, including; offending behaviour, being remanded in custody, mental health concerns (and associated feeling of guilt and shame), harms caused to others, low self-esteem, interpersonal conflict and trust issues with family. Prior to his arrest on November 24, 2020, Mr. Stacey reported drinking up to 30 standard drinks daily and disclosed a single lapse since. With the support of his partner, Mr. Stacey voluntarily entered Melbourne Clinic in mid-March and completed 12 days of residential treatment.

Prominent internal and external triggers have been identified, including boredom, difficulties regulating emotions, childhood occurrences, a coping mechanism, home alone and mental health concerns. Mr. Stacey considered that reduced self-esteem, poor self-care, not engaging in leisure activities, isolation and an increased risk of offending behaviour due to intoxication are potential outcomes of relapse. He identified these potential outcomes as motivators to maintain current abstinence from alcohol.

Emphasis in AOD Counselling has been on developing and applying relapse prevention strategies.

Mr. Stacey is working diligently toward his goals and has several protective factors in place; meeting condition of Bail - CISP, supportive partner, safe and secure housing, avoiding re-offending, maintain abstinence from alcohol, continue to engage with Alcoholics Anonymous, the development of pro-social relationships and re-commence employment. Mr. Stacey is developing insight into his offending behaviour and the correlation to his alcohol use which he identified as a coping mechanism to regulate his emotional state.

Mr. Stacey is focused on abstaining from methyl-amphetamine, meeting condition of Bail - CISP, continuing to develop prosocial relationships and attaining a private rental property. In the future, Mr. Stacey may access AOD treatment as a voluntary client via Direct Line - 1800 888 236 - if necessary."[18]

84 In the final CISP report dated 31 March 2021,[19] it was noted that since the initial referral to the program you reported a decline in your mental state and that you had experienced increased anxiety due to the pending court hearing. You voluntarily sought inpatient treatment from The Melbourne Clinic, where you remained between 12 February 2021 and 24 February 2021. You stated that you found inpatient treatment very helpful in stabilising your mental health and providing you with strategies to manage your stress and anxiety. You had previously obtained a mental health care plan for ongoing treatment in the community. You attended one session with a psychologist, but after your admission and treatment at The Melbourne Clinic, you decided to cease treatment with the psychologist. You felt that your mental health was stable and that you could now independently manage any feelings of high stress or anxiety. You did, however, remain open to re-engaging in psychological support should you feel the need to do so in the future.

"Since his admission at The Melbourne Clinic and on-going sessions with AOD counsellor, Mr Stacey has demonstrated strong insight in relation to his anxiety and alcohol use. It is the writer's impression that he is in a stage of action, evidenced by willingness to engage with supports and help-seeking behaviours to alleviate his anxiety and maintain abstinence from alcohol. Mr Stacey's anxiety continues to be an on-going struggle, especially heightened by his current matters with the court, however he is committed to manage this condition with medication and helpful coping strategies."[20]

86 The report commended you for your diligent participation in the CISP, noting your achievements:

"Mr Stacey has attended all scheduled CISP and AOD counselling appointments. He reports he has benefited from supportive counselling and validation received from both therapeutic spaces. Mr Stacey's strong engagement with support has also been in tandem with self-help strategies such as regular exercise, attending alcohol anonymous meetings, check-ins with his sponsor, practising mindfulness and seeking employment to stay productive.

In addition, other protective factors such as stable accommodation, family support, strong feelings of remorse and a desire to change substance use behaviour have enhanced Mr Stacey's motivation to avoid further reoffending.

The writer congratulates Mr Stacey for completing the CISP episode with a high level of engagement, candour and cooperation. It is the writer's hope that he will continue to engage in pro-social activities and help-seeking behaviours to enhance his quality of life."[21]

87 Despite your early lack of remorse, over time and with the assistance of the various programs in which you participated through CISP, you have gained insight into your offending and have become remorseful for what you did. You have accepted responsibility for your actions and acknowledge the impact that your offending has had on Mr and Mrs Blakeley.

88 In her report, Ms Cokorilo noted your profound remorse:

"57. Mr Stacey appeared genuine in his expression of remorse explaining he thinks about the victims' injuries 'all the time' and described persistent fears for their safety and concern that they suffered fatal injuries in the weeks following the accident. He informed he wishes every day that it never happened, and that he could 'take their place to save them the pain'. He reported he is struggling to come to terms with the fact that his actions have injured innocent people. He explained his empathy for them is further facilitated as he is able to relate to the impacts of traumatic accidents having been involved in one in 2006.

61. Mr Stacey presented with good insight into his alcohol use and mental health, and their relationship to the offending. He made no attempts to minimise his offending and appeared deeply and genuinely remorseful. ... .

98. To his credit, Mr Stacey appears genuinely and deeply remorseful for his conduct and does not present with a significant history of driving offences despite his protracted struggle with alcoholism. He recognises the role of alcohol in his offending and presents with good insight and motivation to address his addiction. ... ."[22]

89 You wrote a letter of apology dated 15 February 2022:

"This letter is addressed to the couple that I hit with my car and to the courts

My name is Stephen Stacey and in November 2020 I had an accident while driving my car

That accident involved me running into and knocking down an elderly couple. Severely injuring them both.

I would like to use this opportunity to express my deepest sadness and guilt and remorse for what happened that night.

It was a complete accident and I did not mean to do it. None the less, it happened and I did it. For this I am truly sorry. Not a day goes by that I don't relive it and think about that night.

The injuries that you both sustained and the pain and suffering I put both you and your families through is unforgivable. I hope that you both can recover well and for what it's worth, your health and wellbeing is always on my mind.

What I have done is completely my fault and in no way a reflection of my family and friends.

I take full responsibility for the accident and I must make amends, whatever it takes.

It is with the greatest humility and sadness that I offer my heartfelt apologies for what I have done

90 Ms Cokorilo referred to your genuine remorse, your insight and your commitment to addressing your addiction. She reported:

"98 .... [Mr Stacey] recognises the role of alcohol in his offending and presents with good insight and motivation to address his addiction. The concern is that he may lack internal resources to establish and maintain abstinence unless he is properly supported.

101. Mr Stacey's risks are considered moderate on the basis of his limited priors, history of alcohol abuse, limited supports and compromised mental health characterised. However, he has support from his parents, stable accommodation and displays a positive attitude towards interventions. The concern is that since the offending his mental health has deteriorated further and he currently presents with significant PTSD and MDD symptomatology and has become unemployed.

102. Some of his risk factors are amenable to treatment and can be managed through a combination of AOD and psychological interventions. Although he reported dramatic reduction in his alcohol use, he has been open about ongoing cravings. He would benefit from intensive long-term support to assist him in preventing relapse."[24]

91 Ms Cokorilo offered the following recommendations:

"104. Whilst the sentencing disposition is solely a matter for the Court, it is noted imprisonment would likely weigh more heavily on Mr Stacey than a person without his conditions. He currently presents with PTSD, GAD and MDD symptomatology with suicidal ideation and it is likely that his mental health would further deteriorate in the volatile prison environment.

105. Further, he is unlikely to receive treatment specific to MDD, GAD, or PTSD, which limits prospects of rehabilitation whilst in custody. Additionally, Mr Stacey would be considered a vulnerable individual within the custodial environment as he has no history of incarceration and is naive to antisocial individuals, placing him at a higher risk of threats, intimidation, and exploitation by those with more entrenched patterns of offending.

106. From a purely psychological perspective, Mr Stacey would benefit from psychological interventions to promote insight into underlying mental health issues and support development of functional coping strategies to manage his trauma, depressive and anxiety symptoms rather than self-medicating.

107. Noting the contribution of his Alcohol Use Disorder to his offending, it is recommended that Mr Stacey is supported to engage with AOD interventions to assist him in maintaining abstinence and preventing relapse. AOD specialised interventions should focus on improving his insight into triggers, risk periods, and developing alternative strategies and a relapse prevention plan.

108. Noting the chronicity of his alcoholism and psychopathology it is likely that Mr Stacey would require frequent and ongoing treatment, therefore if sentenced to a further custodial period he would benefit from placement where he could access intensive treatment for substance misuse and mental health.

109. He impresses as having good insight and motivation to reform himself and shows a propensity for rehabilitation if given appropriate supports. He is willing to accept any recommendations impressed upon him by the judicial system and agrees to comply with any conditions to which he is sentenced."[25]

92 According to your counsel, ever since the collision you have, in the main, abstained from using alcohol, although there have been times when you have briefly lapsed. That is understandable, in view of your longstanding addiction. You have made a sustained effort to overcome your addiction, but have not fully beaten it.

93 Mr Lavery conceded that despite the Verdins factors, general deterrence is still a relevant sentencing consideration, albeit moderated because of your mental impairment and the role it played in your offending. In any event, the prosecution has conceded that your mental impairment may mean that a sentence of imprisonment will weigh more heavily on you than it would on a person in normal health, and that there is a serious risk of imprisonment having a significant adverse effect on your mental health.

94 Mr Lavery urged the Court to release you on a community correction order tailored to both punish you and also to rehabilitate you. He submitted that such a course is consistent with the principles enunciated in the case of Boulton.[26]

95 On the other hand, Mr Raimondo submitted that it is not open to make a community correction order in your case because the gravity of your offending and the degree of your moral culpability are high.[27] He submitted that the only appropriate response is to impose a term of imprisonment of such magnitude that even a sentence of imprisonment combined with a community correction order is out of range. He further submitted that this must be so because a degree of cumulation would be required between the two charges on the Indictment.[28]

96 Mr Raimondo referred to the cases of Woldesilassie v The Queen[29] and Lee v The Queen[30] as offering assistance in this sentencing exercise while acknowledging that "the circumstances of the offending and the offenders differ, and each case turns on its own facts".[31]

97 It should be noted that Woldesilassie involved a fatal collision. Lee involved two victims, one of whom sustained extremely serious injuries. In Lee, an appeal against a six-month term of imprisonment was dismissed. Neither of these cases were conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic.

98 I take into account all of the matters personal to you to which I have referred, including your prospects of rehabilitation. I must also take into account such matters as deterrence, especially general deterrence, which is of importance in a case such as this, albeit there will be a degree of moderation because of your mental impairment described earlier. I am required to take into account the question of the protection of members of the community from you and bear in mind the likelihood of your re-offending.

99 I am called upon by the Sentencing Act to manifest the community's denunciation of your conduct and generally to impose a just punishment. I also take into account the delay and rehabilitation in the period of delay.

100 On Charge 1, dangerous driving causing serious injury to Deborah Blakeley, and in respect of Charge 2, dangerous driving causing serious injury to John Blakeley, I note that s5(4C) of the Sentencing Act 1991 provides:

"Subject to subsections (2G), (2GA) and (2H), a court must not impose a sentence that involves the confinement of the offender unless it considers that the purpose or purposes for which the sentence is imposed cannot be achieved by a community correction order to which one or more of the conditions referred to in sections 48F, 48G, 48H, 48I and 48J are attached."

101 With respect, I agree with Mr Lavery that the combination of the requirement to give obvious additional weight to your guilty pleas because of the pandemic, the Verdins factors applicable in your case, together with the progress you have made towards your rehabilitation since committing the offences, leaves it open to consider releasing you on a community correction order tailored to both punishing you and addressing your rehabilitative needs. Your rehabilitation will benefit not only you, but it will also benefit the community around you.

102 Weighing all relevant factors, I propose to accede to Mr Lavery's request.

103 As you know, I have requested a pre-sentence report to assess your suitability for a community correction order. The report assesses you as a suitable candidate for such an order. The report also contains certain information and a number of recommendations.

104 I may only make the order if you consent to it. So that you are in a position to make an informed decision about whether you will give your consent, I will tell you something about the course I propose, and there is a matter I wish to discuss with counsel also.

105 The length of the order will be three (3) years.

107 Every community correction order, including the one I propose in this case, contains seven mandatory conditions. They are:

(1) you must not commit, whether inside or outside Victoria, during the period of the order, an offence punishable by imprisonment;

(2) you must comply with any obligation or requirement prescribed by the regulations;

(3) you must report to, and receive visits from the Secretary during the period of the order;

(4) you must report to the Community Corrections Centre specified in the order, in this case Geelong Community Correctional Services, Level 5, 30A Little Malop Street, Geelong, within two (2) clear working days after the order comes into force, namely, within two (2) days of today;

(5) you must notify the Secretary of any change of address or employment within two (2) clear working days after the change;

(6) you must not leave Victoria except with the permission, either generally or in relation to a particular case, of the Secretary;

(7) you must comply with any direction given by the Secretary that is necessary for the Secretary to give to ensure that you comply with the order. Any such directions may be given to you either orally or in writing.

108 I am also required to attach at least one condition in accordance with s47 of the Sentencing Act 1991. In attaching these conditions, I bear in mind -

(a) the principle of proportionality;

(b) the purpose for which a sentence may be imposed as set out in s5 of the Sentencing Act 1991; and

(c) the purpose of a community correction order as set out in s36 of the Act - namely, to provide a community-based sentence for a wide range of offending behaviours while having regard to and addressing your circumstances.

(1) The Court requires you to perform 150 hours of unpaid community work during the next 12 months. The purpose for attaching this work condition is to adequately punish you in the community.

(2) The Court requires you to undergo treatment and rehabilitation, which I shall soon specify, and as directed by the Secretary unless otherwise directed by the Court. In attaching this treatment and rehabilitation condition, I have regard to:

(i) the need to address the underlying causes of your offending; and

(ii) the recommendations, information and matters identified in the pre‑sentence report concerning your treatment and rehabilitation.

The treatment and rehabilitation specified by the Court is as follows:

(i) assessment and treatment (including testing) for drug abuse or dependency;

(ii) assessment and treatment (including testing) for alcohol abuse or dependency.

110 The next proposal I wish to discuss with counsel is assessment and treatment, including testing at a residential facility for withdrawal from or rehabilitation for alcohol abuse or dependency or withdrawal from or rehabilitation for drug abuse or dependency. I note that Mr Stacey has had inpatient and rehabilitation treatments before. Should this clause or rehabilitation condition be included? That is, in addition to treatment outside a residential facility, should assessment and treatment at a residential facility be added in the order? Ms Walker.

111 MS WALKER: If I could be heard first, Your Honour.

113 MS WALKER: I think that's a sensible condition. It certainly gives Corrections the ability to direct and also gives Mr Stacey the ability to access that type of rehabilitation if required.

114 HER HONOUR: So I should add "if directed by the Secretary". Is it enough to say "directed by the Secretary" or should I also add "or by Community Corrections"?

116 HER HONOUR: Mr Raimondo, do you have an opinion, for a start, as to the imposition of that condition, namely, "if directed by the Secretary or Community Corrections, assessment and treatment, including testing at a residential facility"?

117 MR RAIMONDO: I think that condition is appropriate, Your Honour. In relation to - I think it should be "at the direction of the Secretary". I understand the Secretary then delegates to the individual caseworker. So having it at the direction of the Secretary should suffice, Your Honour.

118 HER HONOUR: Thank you very much, Mr Raimondo. Very well. So the third condition:

(iii) if directed by the Secretary, assessment and treatment (including testing) at a residential facility for:

• - withdrawal from or rehabilitation for alcohol abuse or dependency or;
• - withdrawal from or rehabilitation for drug abuse or dependency;

(iv) medical assessment and treatment that may include general or specialist medical treatment or treatment in a hospital or residential facility;

(v) mental health assessment and treatment that may include psychological, neuropsychological, psychiatric or treatment in a hospital or residential facility;

(vi) any program that addresses factors related to your offending behaviour;

(vii) any other treatment and rehabilitation necessary that may include employment, educational, cultural and personal development programs that are consistent with the purpose of the treatment and rehabilitation condition.

119 Under s48CA of the Sentencing Act 1991, I determine that 50 hours satisfactorily completed for treatment and rehabilitation are to be counted as hours of unpaid community work for the purposes of the unpaid community work condition.

(1) You will be required to be under the supervision of, and be monitored and managed as directed by the Secretary for the period of three years. I propose to attach this supervision condition for the purpose of ensuring your compliance with the order.

(2) I propose attaching an "alcohol exclusion condition". I will direct for the period of three years:

(i) you must not enter or remain in any licensed premises characterised as a nightclub, bar, restaurant, café, reception centre or function centre; and

(ii) you must not enter or remain in the location of any major event; and

(iii) you must not enter or remain in a bar area of any licensed premises not covered by the two previous alcohol restrictions; and

(iv) you must not consume liquor in any licensed premises not covered by the first two alcohol restrictions.

(v) you must not enter or remain in any premises where alcohol is served or sold. You may enter a supermarket, but must not enter the section where alcohol is sold.

I consider such alcohol exclusion conditions to be necessary to address the role alcohol has played in your offending behaviour. I have also had regard to any effect attaching such conditions may have on your employment.

(3) In addition to making the order, I propose to impose a fine of $1,000.00.

120 My proposal then is to record a conviction in respect of each charge and make a Community Correction Order containing all of the conditions that I have just mentioned.

121 You must understand that if you breach any of the conditions of this order, you may be charged with the offence of contravening a community correction order. That offence carries a maximum penalty of three months' imprisonment. There may be other consequences. If you are found guilty of the breach, in addition to the penalty imposed for that offence, the Court might vary or cancel the order or re-sentence you in respect of the offences before me today. That might mean you will be sent to prison as a result. Mr Stacey, do you understand?

123 HER HONOUR: Very well. And do you understand the consequences of breaching the order if I give you this opportunity?

125 HER HONOUR: Do you consent to the order in the terms I have outlined and, I repeat, in the full knowledge of the consequences of breaching such an order?

127 HER HONOUR: Very well. The order may be prepared in the terms that I have indicated.

128 While we are waiting for that document to be prepared, on the summary offence of commit an indictable offence while on bail, you are convicted and sentenced to pay a fine in the amount of $500.00. So the total amount of the fines is $1,500.00, plus the Community Correction Order.

Statement under s6AAA Sentencing Act 1991

129 I am required to state the sentence and non-parole period, if any, that would have been imposed in respect of the offences but for the plea of guilty. Therefore, pursuant to s6AAA of the Sentencing Act 1991, and taking into account the matters I have previously referred to as relevant to the weight to be given to your guilty plea, noting that additional weight was given because of the COVID-19 pandemic, I state that but for your guilty plea, the total effective sentence I would have imposed is eighteen months' imprisonment. I would have directed that you serve a minimum of twelve months before becoming eligible for parole.

130 I direct, pursuant to s6AAA, that the sentence that would have been imposed but for the plea of guilty be noted in the Court's records.

131 Now, I will turn to ancillary orders after I have checked the terms of the Community Correction Order. Just take a minute, Mr Raimondo, for you to receive your copy. And, Ms Walker, you will be handed a copy in a moment, just to double-check that all of the conditions are correctly included on the proposed order.

133 HER HONOUR: Mr Stacey may step out of the dock and sit a safe distance behind his counsel, please, and please keep your mask on. I think it is now time, Ms Walker, for you to put your mask on.

137 HER HONOUR: The way the Court computer system generates the orders is slightly different to the way I have pronounced them, and they are stuck in the computer system. I am not able to physically change the wording of some of these orders, but I can make additional notes in the Court records, if necessary, to give effect to my orders. So that will explain why, perhaps, some of the wording is different. But, Mr Raimondo, have you got your copy now?

139 HER HONOUR: Thank you. Ms Walker, do you have your copy now?

141 HER HONOUR: All right. Well, I will just repeat the conditions, if you will follow on. So obviously the seven mandatory conditions I will not repeat. So the additional conditions: 150 hours of unpaid community work during the next 12 months; treatment and rehabilitation:

(i) assessment and treatment (including testing) for drug abuse or dependency;

(ii) assessment and treatment (including testing) for alcohol abuse or dependency.

(iii) if directed by the Secretary - and I understand this is where the wording might be slightly different, but - if directed by the Secretary, assessment and treatment (including testing) at a residential facility for

• - withdrawal from or rehabilitation for alcohol abuse or dependency or;
• - withdrawal from or rehabilitation for drug abuse or dependency;

(iv) medical assessment and treatment that may include general or specialist medical treatment or treatment in a hospital or residential facility;

(v) mental health assessment and treatment that may include psychological, neuropsychological, psychiatric or treatment in a hospital or residential facility;

(vi) any program that addresses factors related to offending behaviour;

(vii) any other treatment and rehabilitation necessary that may include employment, educational, cultural and personal development programs that are consistent with the purpose of the treatment and rehabilitation condition.

142 Under s48CA of the Sentencing Act 1991, 50 hours satisfactorily completed for treatment and rehabilitation are to be counted as hours of unpaid community work for the purposes of the unpaid community work condition.

143 Supervision for three years, alcohol exclusion:

(i) you must not enter or remain in any licensed premises characterised as a nightclub, bar, restaurant, café, reception centre or function centre;

(ii) you must not enter or remain in the location of any major event;

(iii) you must not enter or remain in a bar area of any licensed premises not covered by the two previous alcohol restrictions;

(iv) you must not consume liquor in any licensed premises not covered by the first two alcohol restrictions.

(v) you must not enter or remain in any premises where alcohol is served or sold. May enter a supermarket, but must not enter the section where alcohol is sold.

(vi) In addition, fined $1,000.00.

146 HER HONOUR: So on the summary offence, there is a separate fine that is not part of the Community Correction Order, and that is the $500.00 on the offence of commit indictable offence while on bail. So it is $1,000.00 fine on the CCO, and a separate fine of $500.00 on the summary charge. All right. Is that all there?

148 MR RAIMONDO: Yes, Your Honour. Yes, Your Honour.

149 HER HONOUR: Very well. Does Mr Stacey have a pen? It is all right. My associate will come and give him a pen.

151 HER HONOUR: He can sign in the presence of my associate.

153 HER HONOUR: And then I will sign the order. He has his own pen. That is good. Mr Stacey, that is your signature you have signed in the presence of my associate?

156 Now, ancillary orders. Mr Raimondo, was there some - - -

158 HER HONOUR: - - - question about interference with licence or not?

159 MR RAIMONDO: Yes. There was, Your Honour. Pursuant to s89 of the Sentencing Act, Your Honour, dangerous driving causing serious injury is a serious motor vehicle offence and, pursuant to s89(2)(a), the minimum period of disqualification, Your Honour, is 18 months.

161 MR RAIMONDO: It seems the wording is discretionary, Your Honour.

162 HER HONOUR: Ms Walker, do you wish to be heard?

163 MS WALKER: Just for Your Honour to take into account that as part of his bail condition he has been restricted from driving. He has not been allowed to drive since he was placed on bail, being November 2020.

164 MR RAIMONDO: I have no opposition to Your Honour backdating any order Your Honour makes to that date.

167 HER HONOUR: Does your client need the ability to drive to attend for treatment or for employment?

168 MS WALKER: He may, yes. I mean, he has not got employment at the moment. He has indicated that he may have prospects of employment in Ballarat, and he is residing in Geelong at the moment.

169 HER HONOUR: Well, more than a year ago that he has been prohibited from driving. Is there really any point to making such an order?

170 MR RAIMONDO: It is a matter for Your Honour. He will need his licence, Your Honour, to go from Herne Hill to Geelong for the CCO in any case, Your Honour.

171 HER HONOUR: Very well. I have given consideration to whether or not I should cancel and to disqualify Mr Stacey from driving, under s89. It was a condition of his bail that he not drive a vehicle. There is no suggestion that he has breached that condition. He has not been permitted to drive a motor vehicle since 26 November 2020. Even if I backdated the order I would have been unlikely to make an order just cancelling the licence or disqualifying him from driving for over one year, so I therefore propose not to make any such order. As I say, in effect, there has been a de facto order in place since November 2020. Are there any other ancillary orders that are required?

173 HER HONOUR: Thank you, Mr Raimondo. Ms Walker, anything further?

174 MS WALKER: No, Your Honour. As the court pleases.

[1] Exhibit 2, Report of S Cokorilo, psychologist, dated 9 February 2022

[2] R v Verdins & Ors [2007] VSCA 102; (2007) 16 VR 269

[7] See for example R v Payne [2002] WASCA 186; (2002) 131 A Crim R 432 at paragraph [43]

[10] Worboyes v The Queen [2021] VSCA 169, particularly at paragraphs [34]-[39]

[11] The Queen v Madex [2020] VSC 145 at paragraphs [51]-[52]

[12] Brown v The Queen [2020] VSCA 60 at paragraph [40]

[13] Exhibit 4, Report of Ms A Crole dated 27 November 2020, at pages 3 and 4

[14] Exhibit 6, Assessment and recommending CISP dated 26 November 2020, page 1

[16] Exhibit 7, Australian Community Support Organisation assessment report dated 31 December 2020, page 2

[24] Exhibit 2, paragraphs 98, 101, 102

[26] Boulton v The Queen; Clements v The Queen; Fitzgerald v The Queen [2014] VSCA 342; (2014) 46 VR 308

[27] Referencing DPP v Oates [2007] VSCA 59 at paragraphs [22], [31], and [38]

[28] Referring to R v Towle [2009] VSCA 280 at paragraph [97]

[29] [2018] VSCA 285 "Woldesilassie"

[30] [2021] VSCA 156 "Lee"

[31] Exhibit B, Prosecution Submissions on Sentence dated 17 February 2022, paragraph 17