DPP v Tate [2025] VCC 1673

1. You are to be sentenced on the basis of the Summary of Prosecution Opening for Plea dated 22 October 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 13 December 2019 between a vehicle you were driving and another car which was driven by Tony Kaye.[2]
2. At the time of the collision you were 25 years' old and held a probationary drivers' licence. Terry Romanos, who was 21, was sitting in the front passenger seat of your vehicle at the time of the collision.
3. Tony Kaye was 49 years old and was working as a milk delivery driver in a Toyota Hilux registered WML809.
4. The collision occurred on High Street in Reservoir in a residential area. The road has a speed limit of 60 km/h, two lanes which are separated by a continuous, solid white line and was in good condition.
5. On 12 December 2019, Mr Kaye commenced his shift at 10pm in Thomastown, and carried out his deliveries over the next few hours.
6. In the early hours of 13 December 2019, Mr Romanos and you were at Mr Romanos's mother's house in Epping. At 2.00 am, Mr Romanos asked you to drive him to Reservoir to collect his car. You agreed and drove him in a Holden Astra registered 'AUS551'.
7. At 2:17 am, Ambulance Victoria paramedics Bree David and Jodie Monger saw you driving in what they thought was an erratic manner and at an excessive speed. Ms David estimated that you were driving in excess of 60km/h.
8. Mr Kaye was driving his van on High Street at this time, and was returning to the Thomastown depot. He was driving at the speed limit.
9. Without warning, you crossed over the centre white line and collided head-on with the milk van. The only other vehicle in the vicinity was the ambulance.
10. Immediately after the collision, paramedic Ms Monger observed Mr Romanas try to exit the vehicle and collapse on the nature strip, screaming in agony due to his injuries. Ms Monger also saw you exit the vehicle and collapse on the road.
11. Paramedics attended to both you and Mr Romanos.
12. Mr Kaye was trapped in his van due to the damage to his vehicle and it took the fire brigade 15 minutes to cut him out. Ms Monger attend to Mr Kaye who was conscious but experiencing chest and abdominal pain.
13. Mr Kaye, Mr Romanos and you all had lift-threatening injuries at the scene.
14. Paramedic Josh Bumpsteed attended to you. You admitted to him that you had used 'ice' that evening.
15. You were taken to the Royal Melbourne Hospital, where you remained until 18 December 2019.

1. Mr Kaye suffered soft tissue injuries including bruising and seat-belt marks; multiple bone fractures and organ injuries including blood in the space between the lung and ribcage, lung tissue collapse to both lungs and the right internal carotid artery had 30% narrowing.
2. On 25 January 2020, Mr Kaye presented with complaints of painful limbs, increased abdominal swelling and bruising due to the wound breakdown of the seat belt injury, with increased bleeding, and left sided chest pain.
3. On 28 January 2020, he was admitted to the Austin Hospital where he remained until 31 January 2020 due to injuries secondary to the collision. He required a specialist surgical procedure with excision of 5cm of skin on abdomen, evacuation of abdominal wound haematoma, wound debridement and washout of blood clot and dead fat tissue. A stoma bag was applied.
4. Sadly, Mr Kaye passed away from liver disease in July 2022, which was unrelated to the accident.

1. Mr Romanos suffered multiple bone fractures including a neck fracture and two spinal fractures as well as complex abdominal organ injuries, three perforations, a tear in the small bowel, mesenteric tear with active bleeding and 1.5 litres blood loss.
2. On 13 December 2019, he underwent emergency specialist trauma surgery. He was admitted to the intensive care unit. He required imaging investigations, medication, including for pain relief, to prevent infections, to prevent blood clots and for anaesthesia, as well as transfusing four litres of crystalloids and a unit of packed red blood cells.

1. Enquiries about the Astra driven by you revealed it had been stolen from a car wash at Briggs Road, Tullamarine on 12 November 2019. The correct registration was 1LO6SU and it was a hire car owned by Redspot Fleet Pty Ltd.
2. At 3:45 am on 13 December 2019, Detective Sgt Robert Hay attended the accident scene. He observed the two cars 1.6m apart.
3. On impact, the milk van was shunted back 1 to 2 metres and sustained irreparable damage to the front end of the vehicle. The cabin was crushed, steering wheel snapped and the refrigerated receptacle containing all the deliveries had been dislodged from the vehicle.
4. The white Astra also sustained irreparable damage to the front end of the vehicle and had a frontal rearward crush across the front.
5. Data from the Astra showed:

(a) The absence of any recorded harsh steering, braking and/or acceleration in the pre-crash data, excluding wheel slip or wheel lock as a factor affecting the accuracy of the reported vehicle speed; and

(b) That the speed ranged between 63 to 74 km/h, with an estimated speed at the point of collision being 64km/h.

1. Later examination of the Astra did not reveal any mechanical faults or conditions which would have caused or contributed to the collision.
2. Photographs were taken of the scene and an ice pipe was found lodged in the sun visor of the Astra.

1. On 18 December 2019, analysis of a blood sample taken from you at 3:30 am on 13 December 2019, confirmed the presence of methylamphetamine (~0.97 mg/L) and amphetamine (~0.25mg/L). A prescribed drug known as Ondansetron, used to prevent nausea and vomiting, was also detected.
2. In the opinion of Dr Schreiber of the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine,

(a) You were driving after having used methylamphetamine;

(b) The methylamphetamine level found in your blood was high;

(c) Your driving and behaviour would [be attributed] to disinhibition, impaired judgement with risk taking, impaired alertness and impaired functioning caused by the consumption of methylamphetamine or its rebound effect; and

(d) Methylamphetamine at this level would have prevented you from having proper control of your motor vehicle.

1. The court received three victim impact statements:

(a) A statement dated 7 October 2021 made by the late Tony Kaye;

(b) A statement dated 23 February 2023 made by Nino Apap, father of the late Tony Kaye; and

(c) A statement dated 23 February 2023 made by Louis Apap, brother of the late Tony Kaye.

1. Mr Kaye informed the court of the severity of his injuries and the extensive medical treatment he received. He had flashbacks about the collision. He had no capacity for work and his life had come to a standstill.
2. Both Mr Nino Apap and Mr Louis Apap wrote of their distress seeing what had happened to their son and brother, respectively, as a result of the injuries he sustained in the accident. Both write evocatively of the very significant weight gain and the consequent limitation on movement and daily life.
3. Their statements are a vivid reminder of the widespread toll taken on our community by a moment of terrible driving.
4. Although the court did not receive a statement from Mr Romanos, I have no doubt that his extensive injuries would have been very debilitating.
5. I have taken into account the impact of your offending on all of your victims both primary and secondary.

1. In determining the appropriate sentence to impose on you, it is necessary to start by assessing the objective gravity of your offending.

1. A driving offence that results in serious injury to another person is obviously serious; so much is clear from the maximum penalty of imprisonment for 5 years.
2. The offence with which you were charged is the less serious of the two offences under the Crimes Act that may be charged where a driver causes serious injury to another road user. It requires proof that the driver drove at a speed or in a manner 'which was dangerous to the public having regard to all the circumstances of the case'.[3]
3. The more serious offence is negligently causing serious injury which attracts a maximum penalty of 10 years' imprisonment.[4] Where a driver faces that charge, the prosecution must prove that the driver failed to observe the standard of care expected of road users to a gross degree.[5]
4. The gravity of dangerous driving causing serious injury offending is gauged by a consideration of an offender's moral culpability and the objective dangerousness of their driving.[6]
5. The Court of Appeal has explained, in relation to the offence of dangerous driving causing death, the correct approach that a court must follow in assessing the objective gravity of a given instance of the offence, which I take to be applicable to dangerous driving causing serious injury:

Driving will be dangerous where there is 'some serious breach of the proper conduct of a vehicle so as to be in reality and not speculatively, potentially dangerous to others.' The driving must have some feature which subjects the public 'to some risk over and above that ordinarily associated with the driving of a motor vehicle, including driving by a person who may on occasion drive with less than due care and attention.' A Court's assessment of the dangerousness of the driving will be informed by the extent of the risk which the driving created, as well as by the extent of potential harm should the risk materialise.[7]

6. The risk your driving created was not occasioned by inattention. On the contrary, you were driving after having consumed methylamphetamine. According to Dr Schreiber, the level of the drug in your blood was high. This level of drugs in your system would contribute to disinhibition, impaired judgment, risk taking, impaired alertness and impaired functioning. Methylamphetamine at this level would have prevented you from having proper control of your vehicle.
7. You were observed, shortly before the collision, driving in an erratic manner and at a speed that was estimated by a witness as over the speed limit.
8. While yours was certainly not the worst case of dangerous driving it approaches the mid range for offences of this type. As noted, it is also necessary to consider the injuries caused by your driving which were detailed earlier in these reasons.

1. The injuries evidence the extent of the harm created by your driving. Both of your victims could have been killed by your driving.
2. Having regard to your departure from the appropriate standard of driving in the circumstances of the case, the extent of the risk which your driving created, as well as the extent of potential harm should that risk materialise, which in this case it did, I conclude that yours is approaching a mid-range example of the offence.

1. You are 31 years old and were born in September 1994.
2. You were born in Western Australia to parents Kevin and Lyn. You have one younger brother and three older step-sisters. Your parents separated when you were 2 years old, which resulted in your father moving to Victoria where your grandfather helped raise you.
3. Your parents reunited shortly after and remained together until you were aged 15. Your father worked long hours in a warehouse and you rarely saw him throughout the work week. You report that you had a stable home environment.
4. You went to multiple primary and high schools where you experienced social isolation and did not make friends easily. You were often asked to leave these schools due your behavioural problems and to avoid expulsion.
5. You completed Year 8 before commencing an automotive apprenticeship that you didn't finish. For the next 10 years you worked at a wheels and tyre shop until mid 2024. Before being remanded for this matter you were living in Craigieburn with your father and also working with him at a recycling company.
6. You have been in a relationship with Ashley from the start of 2023, with whom you have a one year old daughter. You remain in an ongoing relationship despite having an intervention order in place.
7. You began using methylamphetamine socially at the age of 17, where your use escalated from monthly to daily over two months. Your drug use has fluctuated over the years however, you report that your substance use ceased in October 2024.

1. First and foremost are your pleas of guilty. Although your pleas could not be characterised as early, they are valuable nonetheless.
2. 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.
3. I accept that you are remorseful for your offending. Your guilty plea is some evidence of this. Prior to receiving the indication you were less forthcoming telling a neuropsychologist in July of this year that you were not certain that you were driving the vehicle involved in the collision.[8] You did express 'despair and sadness at the extent of the injuries sustained by all parties involved'.[9]
4. A further significant matter of mitigation concerns delay. A matter your counsel, Mr Kantor submitted should be given significant weight in the sentencing exercise. The offending in this case occurred in December 2019, nearly 6 years have passed since then. You were charged in September 2021. Initially the case was brought in the summary stream in the Magistrates' Court but was ultimately uplifted in June 2023 into the indictable stream.
5. It came to this court in March 2024, the delay of 6 years between the commission of the offence and the date of sentencing is a very significant delay. You have had the matter hanging over your head throughout that time. That is a matter the court will always take into account in determining the appropriate sentence in mitigation of sentence.

1. As a reasonably young offender, it is important that the sentence I impose facilitates your rehabilitation to the extent possible. Ultimately it is in both your interests and those of the broader community that you are rehabilitated.
2. In assessing your prospects of rehabilitation, it is significant that you have the ongoing support of your partner and your family. As noted, you have a young child who needs your support.
3. 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. In this regard, it is a positive you have engaged in the STAR Program through the Salvation Army. A letter dated 4 April 2025 from an AOD Practitioner with the program describes your engagement as positive and states that you are committed to completing the program.
4. I assess your prospects as fair.

1. The principal sentencing consideration in cases of this nature is general deterrence. As the Court of Appeal explained in the recent case of 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]
2. Denunciation, community protection and specific deterrence also play a role as sentencing purposes having regard to your criminal history and especially your driving record.
3. Taking into account the maximum penalties, the objective gravity of your offending and all of the matters of mitigation referred to earlier, I make the following orders:

(a) On charge one, dangerous driving causing serious injury you are convicted and sentenced to 14 months' imprisonment;

(b) On charge two, dangerous driving causing serious injury you are convicted and sentenced to 14 months' imprisonment; and

(c) On charge 3, theft, you are convicted and sentenced to 6 months' imprisonment.

1. The sentence imposed on charge 1 is the base sentence.
2. Three months of the sentence on charge 2 and 1 month of the sentence on charge 3 are to be served cumulatively on the base sentence and on each other.
3. The total effective sentence is 18 months' imprisonment.
4. You will be eligible for parole after you have served 10 months in custody.
5. I will make the disposal order sought by the prosecution noting that is it unopposed.
6. Pursuant to section 18 of the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) ('Sentencing Act'), I declare that the 164 days you have spent in custody are to be counted as time served in respect of the sentence I have imposed today.
7. Pursuant to section 6AAA of the Sentencing Act, if you had pleaded not guilty, the total effective sentence would have been 2 years and 3 months in custody with a non-parole period of 20 months.

[3] Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) s 319(1A).

[4] Ibid s 24.

[5] Aston v The Queen [2019] VSCA 225, 8 [26].

[6] DPP v Oates [2007] VSCA 59, 5-6 [21], 8 [31], 10 [39]; DPP (Vic) v Neethling [2009] VSCA 116; (2009) 22 VR 466, 11 [33].

[7] Stephens v The Queen [2016] VSCA 121, 6 [20] (citations omitted).

[8] Neuropsychological Report written by Laura Scott dated 18 August 2025 (Exhibit D3) 4.

[10] Hennessy v The King [2024] VSCA 2, 17-8 [87].