DPP v Tarasiunas [2025] VCC 1595

1. You are to be sentenced on the basis of the Summary of Prosecution Opening for Plea dated 3 July 2025.[1] I note this is an agreed document.

1. The charges arise from a motor vehicle collision which occurred in the early hours of 16 August 2022.
2. At the time of the collision you were 46 years old and held a full Victorian Driver's Licence. You were driving a blue 2005 Ford Territory Wagon (Registration Number: TSR 455).
3. As a result of the collision Peter Visalli, who was 36 years of age, suffered fatal injuries and Zoe Nemet, who was 48 years of age, was seriously injured, as were you.
4. During the evening of Monday 15 August 2022, Mr Visalli was at his friend, Anthony Makdeezi's home in Keilor East.
5. Between 10.00 - 11.00pm, Ms Nemet left her home in Sunshine West and drove in her Hyundai Accent to Mr Makdeezi's home in order to pick up Mr Visalli. After her arrival, she spent a couple of hours at the house.
6. At 1:15am on 16 August 2022, Ms Nemet left that house with Mr Visalli in her car to meet a mutual friend at Milleara Mall. They were both wearing seatbelts.
7. Shortly before the collision at 1:28 am, Ms Nemet was driving along Milleara Road, Keilor East in the lane closest to the centre of the road. The road is in a residential area with nature strips, pathways on both sides and is illuminated by street lighting. The speed limit is 60 kilometres per hour. At the time of the collision, it was dark, however, nearby street lighting was operating. The road was damp and the traffic flow was very light.
8. In her police statement Ms Nemet estimated that she not travelling faster than 50 or 60 kilometres per hour. At the same time, you were driving in your Ford Territory in the opposite direction along Milleara Road. No one else was in your car.
9. As the two vehicles approached one another, you drove your car over the solid white line into Ms Nemet's lane, and collided head on with her Hyundai.
10. The collision caused your car to rotate anti clockwise and continue travelling for a short distance before resting. The Hyundai's airbags deployed, and it also rotated anti-clockwise whilst being pushed backwards, before mounting the nature strip and coming to rest.
11. Whilst Ms Nemet and Mr Visalli were trapped in the Hyundai, you approached them and said the following 'Oh my god, I'm so sorry, its ok, you haven't done anything wrong'. Ms Nemet recalled that you used the word 'nod' and she formed the view that you must have fallen asleep behind the wheel.
12. Police and other emergency services attended a short time later.
13. At the collision scene, you had the following conversation with First Constable Pintos:

Mr Tarasiunas: Yeah, fuck, I'm so sorry, fucking hell, can't believe it, yeah, gosh, far out, I can't believe it, fuckin' - - -".

Mr Tarasiunas: Tell you the - to tell you the truth, I just, you know, closed my eyes, like, for a - a split second, I'll be honest.

Mr Tarasiunas: I - look, to tell you the truth, my wife's fuckin' run. My wife's left me after 29 years. Three kids, I haven't seen my kids in four years. My life's a fuckin' mess. But now I'm just tired, sorry.

F/C Pintos: And - and do you think that you might have closed your eyes here?

Mr Tarasiunas: - - - I think that, to be honest. I'm not gunna - - -

1. You then had a conversation with Constable Bains at the scene:

Constable Baines: And do you remember, did you see the other car before you shut your eyes?

Mr Tarasiunas: No. The last thing is just the lights.

Constable Baines: Are the lights what brought your eyes open?

Mr Tarasiunas: No. Just the initial ... seeing what was about to happen.

1. Ms Nemet and Mr Visalli were removed from the Hyundai by members of the fire brigade. They were treated at the scene by paramedics and taken by ambulance to the Royal Melbourne Hospital.
2. Mr Visalli suffered a Grade 4 blunt thoracic aortic injury, namely a complete transection of the descending aorta with an associated left haemothorax. He was transferred to the operating theatre for surgery, however his condition deteriorated and he died at 6.17am (Charge 1: Culpable driving causing death).
3. Ms Nemet suffered the following injuries (Charge 2: Negligently causing serious injury):

(a) Transection of the small bowel;

(b) A sigmoid colon injury;

(c) A splenic laceration;

(d) A traumatic left abdominal wall hernia; and

(e) A left L1 transverse process fracture (spinal fracture).

1. Ms Nemet underwent surgery to repair her injuries, namely a laparotomy. She remained in hospital for eight days.
2. A blood sample was taken from Ms Nemet at 3:18am. The blood sample was later analysed and found to contain 16 mg/L of Gamma Hydroxybutyrate (GHB), 0.22 mg/L of methylamphetamine, 0.05 mg/L of amphetamine and 0.03 mg/L of nordiazepam.
3. After being discharged from hospital, Ms Nemet underwent extensive rehabilitation and further surgery and had ongoing and significant issues associated with her injuries. Ms Nemet has since passed away, however this was not due to the injuries she sustained in the accident.
4. You suffered a fractured sternum and ribs and were treated at the Royal Melbourne Hospital.

1. A reconstruction of the accident was conducted by Detective Senior Constable Yuxing Zhao, collision reconstruction expert. He opined as follows:

At impact, the Ford was travelling at 47 - 72 km/h, and the Hyundai was travelling at 50 - 55 km/h. The collision occurred wholly in the right lane of the southbound Milleara Road travelled by the Hyundai. There was no evidence at the scene to suggest either vehicle was out of control prior to the collision.

I am unable to determine why the northbound Ford had entered the southbound carriageway.

1. On 6 October 2022, your Ford Territory was subjected to a mechanical examination by Senior Constable Daniel Pearce of the Collision Reconstruction and Mechanical Investigation Unit. Senior Constable Pearce found that all four tyres on the vehicle were worn down to and beyond the tread wear indicators. He concluded as follows:

The lack of tread on all the tyres would have an adverse effect on their ability to function as intended in wet or wintery conditions. This collision occurred when the road surface was wet, but it wasn't raining, it's possible the condition of the tyres has contributed to the collision.

My examination did not reveal any other faults, failures or conditions that could have caused or contributed to the collision.

1. Whilst Ms Nemet was driving whilst drug affected, there is no evidence that her driving either contributed to, or caused, the collision.
2. The blood sample taken from you was analysed and found to contain the following drugs:

(a) 0.23 mg/L of methamphetamine; and

(b) 0.04 mg/L of amphetamine.

1. Dr Jason Schreiber, Forensic Physician at the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine provided an expert opinion in relation to the presence of drugs in your blood at the time of the collision and the impact on your driving. He opined as follows:

[The Accused] was driving after using methamphetamine. This drug has the potential to significantly impair driving. The methamphetamine level found in his blood was high.

1. Professor Matthew Naughton, Respiratory and Sleep Physician and Head of the General Respiratory and Sleep Medicine Services at the Alfred Hospital provided an expert opinion regarding your level of fatigue at the time of the collision.
2. Professor Naughton concluded that your phone records demonstrated that you had acute and chronic sleep deprivation:

(a) Your sleep was significantly restricted Friday to Sunday nights;

(b) You had a lack of sleep on the night of the crash;

(c) There was a period of extended wakefulness (> 19 hours);

(d) Within the limitation of what Professor Naughton had been provided, he could find no evidence of other causes of fatigue related crash such as an underlying pathological heart, brain, sleep or endocrine disorder; and

(e) The drug screen identified methylamphetamines and amphetamines which are known to fragment sleep, and accordingly result in impaired quality of sleep.

1. On 17 August 2022, you were arrested and provided a no-comment interview.

1. The case to which you have pleaded guilty is that you drove your vehicle culpably in that you were grossly negligent.[2] In particular:

(a) You drove your vehicle when fatigued to such an extent that you knew, or ought to have known, that there was an appreciable risk of falling asleep while driving or of losing control of the vehicle;

(b) By driving when fatigued, falling asleep, driving onto the incorrect side of the road and colliding head on with another vehicle, you failed unjustifiably and to a gross degree to observe the standard of care which a reasonable person would have observed in all of the circumstances; and

(c) Your methylamphetamine use is the most probable contributor or cause for your fatigue and the collision.

1. Mr Tarasiunas, we all use our roads. In so doing we depend on each other for our safety. Ms Nemet and Mr Visalli depended on you for their safety. You let them down in the most egregious manner. That is the measure of your criminality.
2. Charge one is a mid-range example of culpable driving causing death. You were not speeding and there is no evidence of dangerous driving in the lead up to the collision.
3. Charge two is also mid-range. You were negligent for the reasons already explained. The injuries Ms Nemet sustained were very serious and required extensive and prolonged medical attention.
4. You made the decision to get behind the wheel of your car when you knew how tired you were and that you were drug-affected. Your moral culpability is significant.

1. The court received a victim impact statement from Jessica Visalli, the late Peter Visalli's sister. Ms Visalli was present in court along with other members of the Visalli family.
2. In her statement, Ms Visalli informs the court that the Visalli family is broken and that life will never be the same without Peter. She states that Peter had a way of making everyone feel at ease with his infectious laughter and cheeky smile. Ms Visalli explains that:

There's an empty seat at our table now. Family dinners, birthdays, Christmas - they all happen, but they don't feel the same. We used to be three brothers, a trio, always together. Now a duo. That bond, as strong as it still is, will never feel whole without Peter by our side.

1. Ms Visalli explains that her parents have lived through every parent's nightmare of burying their own child.
2. I have taken into account the profound effect your crime has had on the Visalli family as expressed in this victim impact statement. As I said in Court, I am grateful to the Visali family for explaining the impact of your crime to the court.
3. Although the court did not receive a victim impact statement from a member of the Nemet family, it is clear that your conduct also had a profound effect on Ms Nemet. This too has been taken into account.

1. You are now 49 years old, having been born in 1976.
2. Your father migrated to Australia from Lithuania as a young baby. Your mother was born in Australia but adopted at birth. Your mother struggled with her mental health throughout your childhood, she was diagnosed with personality disorders and bipolar disorder. She was suicidal and attempted to take her life on multiple occasions. She spent many years in hospital and mental health facilities. Despite your father's best efforts, your mother's illnesses had an impact on you growing up.
3. You have a sister, Danielle Mazevski, with whom you remain close. Ms Masevski wrote a lengthy letter to the court about you.[3] She speaks highly of your personal qualities and the struggles you have faced. She tells me of your family history. She expresses the view that with the right support you can make a positive contribution to the community in the future. Ms Masevski and the rest of your family are ready to assist you in the future.
4. You finished your schooling in year 10 and joined your father working in an abattoir. You worked at the meat works in Newport from 1993-2000. Then you worked on tractors and combine harvesters at New Holland from 2000-2011. You worked odd jobs until 2018, when you began working with your father again. You operated your own business between 2021-2023, however, you ceased operations shortly after the collision.
5. You met your first wife, Sue, in 1993 whilst working at the abattoir. You were together for 29 years and have three children together - Kirsten (22), Eloise (19) and Chad (16). You separated from your wife in 2020. She sought an intervention order against you. You did not speak to your children for five years, however, your son recently tried to re-establish a relationship.
6. You are currently in a relationship with Samantha, who remains supportive of you.
7. You began using cannabis recreationally in 1993, your mother kicked you out of the home due to this and you moved in with Sue. You have not drunk alcohol in over 10 years and use drugs recreationally.
8. You have one relevant prior conviction from 2009, for exceeding the prescribed concentration of alcohol and driving whilst disqualified.

1. The most important matters that mitigate the sentence to be imposed are your guilty pleas. Although you did not plead guilty until the eve of your trial and after being given a sentence indication, your guilty pleas have a utilitarian value. They save the court and the community the expense of a criminal trial. More importantly, they save witnesses the anxiety and inconvenience of giving evidence at your trial. They save the families of the late Ms Nemet and the late Mr Visalli the trauma of going through a trial.
2. I accept that you are remorseful for your offending. Your guilty plea is evidence of this as are the comments you made at the scene of the collision.
3. You informed your counsel that you are tormented by the collision and the impact it has had on everyone involved.
4. In assessing your prospects of rehabilitation, it is significant that you have the ongoing support of your partner and your family. You have a good employment history and a limited criminal history. If you can address your drug use I consider you can make a positive contribution to the community in the future. I assess your prospects as good.

1. The court was referred to the recent decision of the Court of Appeal in Hennessy v The King ('Hennessy').[4] In that decision, the Court reviewed a number of sentences imposed by it and by the County Court in recent times for culpable driving causing death.[5] The court observed that, despite the significant variations in the facts of the cases and the circumstances of the offenders, 'the range of the sentences is narrow'.[6] The lowest sentence imposed is 8 years; the highest is 9 years and 6 months; and the median sentence is 9 years and 2 months. The most common sentence is 9 years.
2. The prosecution also referred the court to a number of other decisions to which I have also had regard.[7] Each of these cases involved fatigue often in the context of drug use.
3. Within the constraints identified by the High Court in the case of Dalgliesh,[8] I have been assisted by a consideration of these various cases. I note that a sentencing Judge considers current sentencing practices to achieve the consistent application of sentencing principle.

1. The starting point in determining the appropriate sentence to impose is the maximum penalty for the two offences - 20 years' imprisonment for charge 1 and 10 years' imprisonment for charge 2.
2. The offence of culpable driving causing death is a 'standard sentence' offence for which the standard sentence is 8 years' imprisonment. This is the sentence for an offence that, taking into account only the objective factors affecting the relative seriousness of that offence, is in the middle of the range of seriousness'.[9]
3. The standard sentence is but one factor to which the court must have regard along with the maximum sentence and all of the other relevant considerations.
4. The principal sentencing consideration in cases of this nature is general deterrence. As the Court of Appeal explained in Hennessy, '...a clear message must be sent to other road users that offences committed whilst driving a vehicle under the influence of methylamphetamine will result in stern consequences'.[10]
5. Specific deterrence and denunciation are also relevant sentencing purposes.
6. Taking all relevant matters into account, the court orders:

(a) On charge 1, culpable driving causing death, you are convicted and sentenced to 7 years and 6 months' imprisonment.

(b) On charge 2, negligently causing serious injury, you are convicted and sentenced to three years' imprisonment.

(c) The sentence on charge 1 is the base sentence.

(d) Nine months of the sentence on charge 2 is to be served cumulatively on the base sentence.

(e) The total effective sentence is therefore imprisonment for 8 years and 3 months.

(f) You must serve 5 years before you are eligible for parole.

(g) Pursuant to section 89 of the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) ('Sentencing Act'), all licences disqualified for 2 years.

(h) Pursuant to section 89C of the Sentencing Act, the court finds that the offences were committed while you were under the influence of a drug namely methamphetamine.

(i) Pursuant to section 18 of the Sentencing Act, the period of 18 days since your remand is to count as pre sentence detention in respect of this sentence.

(j) Pursuant to section 6AAA of the Sentencing Act, had you pleaded not guilty, the total effective sentence would have been 11 years' imprisonment and the non parole period would have been 7 years and 4 months' imprisonment.

[2] Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) s 24.

[3] Character Reference written by Danielle Mazevski dated 20 June 2025 ('Exhibit D1').

[4] [2024] VSCA 2 ('Hennessy').

[5] Ibid. The ten cases are listed at paragraph [63] of the court's reasons. They were all decisions handed down after the offence was designated a 'standard sentence' offence.

[7] DPP v Bratherton [2020] VCC 1461; DPP v Ferris [2024] VCC 1878; DPP v Hyslop [2021] VCC 2092; DPP v Kenny [2021] VCC 168; Singh v The Queen [2022] VSCA 178; and DPP v Twentyman [2023] VCC 2229.

[8] DPP v Dalgliesh (a pseudonym) [2017] HCA 41.

[9] Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) s 5A.