DPP v Treloar [2025] VCC 391

1. The circumstances of the offending as I said are contained in the summary of prosecution opening for plea dated 27 March 2025. This document was tendered on the plea; what follows is a summary; On 23 August 2022 at about 4:30pm, you, Liam Pheiffer, Nate Taberner, Elliot Pumpa and Dylan Newell went for a drive in your Mum's car a Kia carnival. You were the driver, Mr Pheiffer was in the front passenger seat, Mr Newell was in the middle row, behind the passenger seat, Mr Pumpa was sitting in the back row, passenger side, and Mr Taberner in the back row, driver's side.
2. At about 5:00pm, you were travelling south along Rokesky's Road towards Horsham-Lubeck Road. Rokesky's Road is a gravel sealed road with a 100km speed limit. It intersects with Horsham-Lubeck Road which is a sealed road also with a 100km speed limit. Both you and at least one of your passengers recall you briefly stopping at this intersection. You looked and saw another vehicle travelling towards you and considered you had enough time to cross the intersection.
3. The vehicle you saw was driven by Jesse Langmaide she was travelling west on Horsham-Lubeck Road in a Subaru towards the intersection with Rokesky's Road. The other occupants of her vehicle, were Mikaela Wilkinson in the front passenger seat, Etira Seehusej in the back driver's side seat, Lauren Briody, in the back middle seat and Ellie Langdon in the back passenger seat. No music was playing, but the group were talking.
4. Ms Langmaide estimated her speed to be 100km while travelling along the Horsham-Lubeck Road. Both she and at least some of her passengers recall seeing your Kia driving towards the intersection and not stopping. Ms Langmaide said that she took her foot off the accelerator and braked hard however she was unable to avoid the collision with your vehicle.
5. Elliott Pumpa was thrown from your car. Mr Taberner and Mr Pheiffer got out of the Kia and saw him on the grass. Mr Newell then hobbled out of the car, and Mr Pheiffer and another person helped put Mr Newell on the grass. At 5:07pm, Ms Wilkinson called triple zero to request an ambulance. She then helped others get out of the car.
6. Sophie Mair had been driving along Horsham-Lubeck Road, a bit behind Ms Langmaide's vehicle. Ms Mair saw smoke ahead. When she arrived at the intersection, she saw a silver vehicle next to a pole and then saw Ms Langmaide standing on the side of the road. You called her over to help with Mr Pumpa who was on the grass. Ms Mair saw Mr Newell exit the vehicle and collapse on the ground. You went to help him.
7. Ms Briody and Ms Seehusen were taken by ambulance to hospital. Ms Briody felt soreness in her neck and back. The next day, she attended her GP due to pain in her tummy, chest, back and neck. Ms Seehusen wore a neck brace for a bit over a week.
8. At about 5:11pm, police communications alerted police units to the collision. At 5:41pm, police arrived at the scene. Ambulance officers advised S/C McGlade that there were five occupants in each vehicle and two occupants of the Kia were seriously injured. During a conversation with police Ms Langmaide produced a full and current Tasmanian driver's license and stated she believed she was doing the speed limit. At the time she had seen the Kia travelling along Rokesky's Road she thought it was not going to stop at the intersection. Ms Langmaide stated that she braked hard to try and avoid the Kia but could not. A preliminary breath test and oral fluid test was conducted with Ms Langmaide. Each returned negative results.
9. Mr Pfeiffer told police that the Kia had come to a stop at the intersection. You produced a current probationary P1 driver's license to police when requested. You advised that you had been driving your parents' car. A preliminary breath test and oral fluid test was conducted with you. Each returned negative results. The police cautioned you and asked what had happened. You stated that you had come to a complete stop and checked each way to give way. You stated that the car that hit looked like it was way back, and you thought it would be fine to go.
10. On the 24th of August 2022, members of the Major Collision Investigation Unit ("MCIU") attended the collision scene. Members of the MCIU conducted a walkthrough of the collision scene and captured footage. They re-attended the next day and took photographs of the scene during daylight.
11. Detective Sergeant Dr Janelle Hardiman of the Forensic Services Department attended the collision scene and conducted a forensic examination. Dr Hardiman was briefed by local police and made a variety of observations of the scene. Dr Hardiman inspected the vehicles and determined the damage to the front of the Subaru was consistent with the vehicle having impacted the passenger side of the Kia van as it crossed its path; the impact was 90 degrees; there was no damage to the Subaru or its tyres which would have contributed to the collision; there was no damage to the Kia or its tyres which would have contributed to the collision; the second-row passenger side seatbelt and rear-row passenger side seatbelt were not being worn when the collision occurred; there was no evidence of pre-impact tyre marks by the Kia; prior to impact, there were two straight tyre scuff marks that extended for 25.1m, consistent with having come from the Subaru whilst under heavy ABS braking.
12. Forensic analysis was also conducted on the Bosch Crash Data retrieval software from the airbag control module of the Subaru. Five seconds of pre-crash data leading to the impact with the Kia was detected. Analysis of the data demonstrated the following: 5 seconds before impact, the Subaru was travelling at 116 km/h and the driver was accelerating, she was 146 metres from the collision; 4 seconds before impact, the Subaru was travelling at 117 km/h; between 2 and 2.5 seconds before impact, the driver released the accelerator and started braking, she was between 50 and 66 metres from impact; the vehicle slowed from 115km/h to 74 km/h in the 2.5 seconds before impact; at the time of impact, the Subaru was travelling at 74 km/h and was under ABS braking; ABS was engaged between about 1.5 and 1 seconds before impact when the subaru was between 21 and 35m from the collision; at impact the Subaru was travelling a minimum of 69 km/h and a maximum of 79km/h; the Kia was travelling a minimum of 19km/h and a maximum of 29km/h.
13. If the Kia came to a complete stop at the give-way sign, to accelerate to 19 to 29km/h over 9m required acceleration of 0.16 to 0.37g. The maximum acceleration of the Kia was 0.37g. It is possible the Kia come to a complete stop. If the Kia did come to a complete stop, it was accelerated heavily to reach 19-29km/h in 9m. This could be consistent with the wheels having spun on the gravel. If the Subaru was travelling 100km/h instead of 114km/h at the commencement of braking, and slowed at the same rate before impact, it would have slowed to 59.7km/h and it would have been 6m from impact. The collision may not have occurred.
14. At the committal hearing, Dr Hardiman gave evidence that if the Subaru was travelling 100km/h and did not brake, the crash would have occurred. There was no way the Kia could have cleared the intersection without the Subaru having to apply maximum brakes. The impact of the wheel spin on the calculations depends on how significant the wheel spin was. Further it was her evidence that if the vehicle required maximum acceleration to clear, probably shouldn't be done.. There is no physical evidence to say whether the Kia did or didn't stop. Neither scenario can be excluded.
15. The prosecution case is that the Kia, driven by you, either: a. failed to stop at the give-way sign entirely; or b. stopped for a short period, but failed to give way by crossing the Subaru's path when there was clearly insufficient time to enable the Kia to clear the intersection. The prosecution case is that either of these possibilities amounts to dangerous driving.
16. As a result of you failing to give way at the intersection, the collision caused serious injury to Elliot Pumpa and Dylan Newell.
17. On the 24th of August 2022, Mr Pumpa was admitted into the intensive care unit of the Royal Children's Hospital and administered an intracranial pressure monitor. On the 25th of August 2022, Mr Pumpa underwent surgery to fix his cervical spine due to him having suffered a cervical (neck) bone spinal fracture. Mr Pumpa was in post-traumatic amnesia for 9 days. He was released from hospital, following a period of rehabilitation, on 16 September 2022. Medical assessment determined that as a result of the motor vehicle accident, Mr Pumpa suffered serious (severe) traumatic brain injury and cervical fractures which required surgical fixation. Mr Pumpa is at a high risk of ongoing neurocognitive difficulties associated with severe traumatic brain injury, including potential difficulties with memory, mood, impulsivity, behaviour, thinking ability, information processing, language skills and fatigue. Mr Pumpa has no memory of the day the collision occurred.
18. On the 24th of August 2022, Mr Newell was examined at the Royal Children's Hospital. Medical examination revealed that Mr Newell had suffered Traumatic injury to his cervical spine that resulted in an unstable fracture and discoligamentous injury at the level of C5/6 requiring surgical stabilisation. On the 26th of August 2022, Mr Newell underwent surgery for treatment of the fracture to his spine. Mr Newell has limited memory of the day of the collision. As a result of his injuries, he has been told that he may not be able to play football for approximately two years.
19. On 24 August 2022, you participated in a record of interview. You said that you had stopped the vehicle at the give-way sign and looked both ways. You were coming off the dirt road onto the bitumen to go straight across. When you accelerated, there was a small skid and it held back the time of getting across. You thought everyone in the car was wearing seatbelts. You told everyone to put their seatbelts on. When you stopped at the give-way sign, the sun, on your left, was bright in your eyes like a blind spot, so the other car seemed further back and you decided to "commit" to going across. Liam looked too but did not say anything. You had in your mind the stress of work and were trying to get back to town. The stress did not make you go faster and you weren't in a rush. You were fully awake and did not feel fatigued. You were driving about 50km/h along Rokesky's Road. You thought the speed limit on Horsham-Lubeck Road was 60km/h. The Subaru hit the passenger side of your vehicle. When police put to you that members of the other car said you did not appear to stop, you stated, "I 110 per cent stopped... And that was the reason for me leaving so slow and not making it".

1. In addition to the summary of prosecution opening for plea, there were two victim impact statements that were tendered on the plea. The first of these was from Elliot Pumpa's mother, Adele Walsh. She made two statements to the police where she gave a personal testament of how the collision impacted Eliott, herself and her two other children.
2. Ms Walsh detailed her harrowing experience of attending the scene of the collision with one of her other children, and subsequently, visiting her son in hospital while he was placed in an induced coma. Ms Walsh describes how she witnessed Eliott moaning and thrashing himself in his bed from the pain. At one stage, Eliott was unable to breathe on his own and had to be sedated. In this moment, Ms Walsh thought her son was going to die. She felt utter fear and despair and could do nothing but hope and pray.
3. As Eliott's primary carer, Ms Walsh continues to encounter challenges balancing a busy work schedule alongside attending to her son's ongoing care needs associated with his spinal injury and brain injury. Ms Walsh witnesses her son experience unpredictable mood swings that did not exist before the collision. She is making efforts to re-engage him with alternative schooling alongside a

school-based apprenticeship. Eliott currently works two days a week as a landscape gardener in a landscape gardening business. 4. The second statement was from Tanya King. She describes that since the collision, Dylan has suffered from ongoing neck and shoulder pain that can leave Dylan in bed for a day or two at a time. 5. Prior to the collision, Dylan was very physically active playing footy and cricket regularly. Following the collision, Dylan withdrew into himself as he was no longer able to participate in these sports. He spends a lot of time in his room, his 'safe-space' and withdraws from family activities. Dylan hoped to be an electrician and had signed on to a local electrician company to start a trial just a day before the collision. His serious injuries mean he can no longer pursue this career path. 6. It has been a very emotional and tough time for both Ms King and Ms Walsh. 7. I take into account the admissible contents of these victim impact statements in sentencing you today.

1. The offence of dangerous driving causing serious injury is a serious offence as reflected in the five-year maximum penalty provided. By your plea, you accept that you drove in a manner that was dangerous to the public. That is, you accept that your driving involved a serious breach of the proper management or control of your vehicle which created a real risk that members of the public in the vicinity would be killed or seriously injured. In this case, two young men, your friends, were seriously injured.
2. Features that ordinarily aggravate the gravity of this type of offending are absent in your case. You were not speeding, you were not intoxicated or drug affected, you were not driving erratically, aggressively or showing off, you were not fatigued or using a mobile phone. To the contrary, in the lead up to the collision, you had been driving in a careful and reasonable manner. You approached the intersection with care and by paying attention to the give way sign.
3. The offence of dangerous driving causing serious can occur in a very wide variety of circumstances. When considering the nature and gravity of your offending it is necessary for me to make an assessment of the gravity of your offending in the circumstances of your particular case not just by reference to whether there are factors of aggravation that are absent. In your case, I consider that you misjudged the time you had to cross the intersection. To some extent, this was out of your control given the speed at which the other vehicle was travelling. However, with four passengers on board and being inexperienced you should have erred on the side of caution and waited for the other vehicle to pass.
4. In my view, in these circumstances your offending falls toward the lower end on the scale of seriousness for offences of this nature. I accept that you had been driving carefully, and in the moment, you misjudged the circumstances you were confronted with. You proceeded through the intersection and Ms Langmaide was simply unable to avoid the collision. In all the circumstances, I consider your moral culpability also falls toward the lower end.
5. After the collision, you acted responsibly. You did what you could to assist those who had been hurt. You tended to both Mr Newell and Mr Pumpa, fearing the worst, that they may die. You described holding Mr Pumpa, fearing for his life as the worst experience you have had to go through.
6. You continue to suffer from severe sleep problems, you wake up from nightmares, you constantly re-live the movement the vehicle as it was hit and spun. Your thoughts have been pre-occupied with the ongoing court case, the boys, the family of the boys and knowing you have hurt them.

1. You were born in July 2024. You were 18 years old at the time of the offending and are now 20 years old. As such, you are a young offender as defined by the Sentencing Act 1991.[1]
2. You were born in Warrnambool and are the eldest of four children. You and your parents moved back to Horsham when you were just a few months old. Your father is a butcher by trade. Your mother is now a registered nurse, having qualified with a Bachelor of Nursing in April 2021. She is currently employed as Nurse in Charge doing agency work across various aged care facilities.
3. You attended Holy Trinity Lutheran College from Prep to Year 10, completing

Year 11 and 12 at St Brigid's College. 4. At the time of the collision you were in Year 12. You were unable to fully apply yourself to your studies as you were worried about Mr Pumpa and Mr Newell. In a letter tendered on your plea, Gerard Raven, the principal of St Brigid's College observed that your involvement in this serious vehicle accident had an impact on your studies due to medical absences and trauma. He described you as showing perseverance in completing the year, but your results were not a true reflection of your abilities. You did not sit your final exams or receive an ATAR score. This meant you did not apply for direct entry into tertiary study after completing VCE. You had hoped to apply for paramedicine. 5. In 2023, you commenced a Diploma of Nursing with Federation University in Horsham. This course involved three days of coursework and two days of placement per week. You had hoped this may be an avenue into paramedicine. The collision was still at the forefront of your mind during and impacted your ability to continue the course. You found the coursework difficult and struggled to cope with the responsibility of people's lives. 6. In 2024, you successfully applied for a position in the Associate Degree of Education at Deakin University. You applied for study in Warrnambool as your parents and two younger siblings had moved there. For a variety of reasons, you have not taken up the position offered. 7. You remain living in Horsham with your aunt and uncle. You continue to work at McDonalds where you have worked since November 2020. In that time, you have been promoted to a shift leader and trainee manager. You have commenced a practical and theoretical trainee mangers' course. A testimonial tendered from Carla Wallace, your general manager, speaks of you in glowing terms. She described you as 'trustworthy, disciplined' and 'reliable' putting 'your all' into this employment opportunity. In her opinion you have grown immensely over the past two years and have learnt a valuable lesson from the accident and all that has stemmed from it. 8. Over the past four years you have enjoyed playing women's football. You have been involved in winning three premierships within the last year in both South Australia and Horsham. In 2024 you won the WVFFL league gaol kicking playing centre half forward. 9. Your father, who is a keen fisherman, with your mother organised an annual event, 'The Gone Fishing Day' in 2023. This is a nationwide event aiming to get families involved in fishing. You have joined in this activity gathering donations for Beyond Blue. You have a close and supportive family and are aware of the impact this has had upon them. 10. Both your church and your faith have been of comfort to you in the aftermath of the accident. Growing up, you would attend Holy Trinity Lutheran Church with your grandmother most Sundays. You continue to attend the Harvest Church in Horsham with your mother and sisters regularly.

1. You have pleaded guilty to the charges. Although I understand your case was listed for trial, you sought a sentence indication and accepted the same when given. In these circumstances, I consider your plea of guilty has significant utilitarian value as you have spared the witnesses the harrowing ordeal of reliving the collision through giving evidence and you have spared the court the time and cost of a trial. In addition, I consider your plea is evidence of your desire to facilitate the course of justice and is evidence of your acceptance of responsibility for the offending and your remorse. I intend to allow a significant discount for these reasons.

1. As I have indicated you were 18 years old at the time of your offending. You are now 20 years old. As such you fall to be sentenced as a young offender. The Court of Appeal in Azzopardi v The Queen summarised the three considerations which underlie the general primacy afforded to an offender's youth as a sentencing consideration:

Firstly, young offenders are often more prone to impulsive and

ill-considered decision making. They may lack the insight and self-control of adults and may not fully appreciate the nature, seriousness and consequences of their criminal conduct.

Secondly, courts recognise the potential for rehabilitation in young people because they are at an earlier stage in their mental and emotional development. Further, the community has an interest in such rehabilitation as in the long term it is protective from the impacts of future offending.

Thirdly, the incarceration of young offenders is more likely to hinder rather than improve their prospects of rehabilitation. Young people in custody are likely to be exposed to corrupting influences which can entrench criminal and anti-social tendencies. These effects have detrimental flow-on consequences in the community.[2]

1. In your case, I give full weight to the primacy of youth. In my view, your youth and inexperience played a role in your offending such that your moral culpability should be somewhat reduced.

1. Delay is a significant mitigatory factor. Your offending occurred approximately two and half years ago and the court proceedings have remained unresolved since that time. In this time you have aged from 18 to 20 years, a time when you should have been stepping into the world and advancing your studies and your future.
2. You have had to live with the worry and strain of this case, and it has caused you enormous anxiety and stress. In addition, you have had to negotiate public opinion in a relatively small town. You have endured the pressure of court and have not known what your future would hold including the potential of a gaol term.
3. The delay has allowed you to demonstrate that you have an ability to foster rehabilitation. You persevered with your Year 12 studies with this as a distraction impacting your ability to concentrate. Despite not being able to take up further studies at this stage you have consistently tried and remained interested. You have committed yourself to work and have been a valuable team member achieving promotion.

1. In terms of rehabilitation, I accept that you are most unlikely to reoffend in the future both because you have no prior convictions and because you have not reoffended in the last two and half years. You have been assessed as a low risk of reoffending by corrections. You come from a loving family who remain supportive, you are well connected to pro-social outlets in the community through church and football. Several testimonials were tendered on your behalf. John and Timothy Olston speak of you as a genuinely caring person who participates in the community and who is polite and respectful. Your mother and father detailed the huge impact this has had upon you, detailing the trauma and emotional impact of the accident.
2. Further, you are appropriately devastated and remorseful for your offending. Today you read to the court a letter of apology to the victims and their families. In my assessment, this was a heartfelt letter indicative of your acceptance of responsibility and genuine remorse for the enduring pain and upset your offending has caused.
3. In the pre-sentence report, the author quoted you as saying that you would like to do a CCO to really show that you want to do better in this world and to prove to yourself and others that you are willing to put in this time.
4. I consider your prospects of rehabilitation to be excellent.

1. The basic purposes for which a court may impose a sentence are just punishment, general and specific deterrence, rehabilitation, denunciation and protection of the community. In my view given your youth and the particular circumstances of your offending, general and specific deterrence should give way to the promotion of your rehabilitation.
2. The principles of proportionality and parsimony are also important considerations. They require me to make sure the punishment imposed fits the crime committed and that I do no more than is necessary to punish you for your offending. I have taken these principles into consideration in fixing the sentence I will now impose.
3. I also take into account the sentencing guidelines referred to in section 5 of the Sentencing Act,[3] where relevant in your case. In particular, I have had regard to the sentencing landscape for the offence of dangerous driving causing serious injury. Ultimately the sentencing exercise requires that I balance all relevant factors and make a judgment as to the appropriate sentence in the circumstances of your particular case.
4. In my view the appropriate sentence in your case is the imposition of a community correction order. In coming to this conclusion, I am mindful of the guidance given by the Court of Appeal in Boulton v The Queen.[4] A community correction order will provide punishment for your offending and allow you to give back to the community through unpaid community work.
5. I have been asked to impose this penalty without conviction. Although I accept that you are a person of good character and your moral culpability for the offending is low, your offending is serious. It has had grave and ongoing consequences for the victims and their families. It is my view that the offending is simply too serious to impose a non-conviction penalty, and the conviction is an important part of the denunciation of this offending by the court.
6. Ms Treloar, you are convicted in relation to each charge of dangerous driving causing serious injury and you are to be placed on a community correction order for a period of 12 months.
7. The conditions of this community correction order include that:

(a) you must perform 100 hours of unpaid community work; and

(b) you must also submit for assessment and treatment for mental health issues.

1. In addition to the conditions that I have imposed, there are standard conditions you must comply with. First and foremost, you cannot commit an offence punishable by imprisonment over the next 12 months. If you do, you will breach the order. If you do breach the order, you will be brought back before me, and I will likely have to re‑sentence you.
2. You need to report within two working days to the Horsham Community Correctional Services, which is just around the corner in McLachlan Street.
3. You are required to advise your supervising Corrections Office of any change of address where you are living or working within two clear working days. It is a term of all community correction orders that you must submit to visits as directed and obey the instructions and directions of the Community Corrections and you cannot leave the State of Victoria without prior permission.
4. If you breach any of those conditions or you do not do the unpaid work or the mental health treatment, you would be brought back to court on a contravention and you may be resentenced.
5. I can only place you on a community correction order if you agree - so firstly, do you understand what is involved?
6. OFFENDER: Yes, Your Honour, I do.
7. HER HONOUR: And do you consent to doing such an order?
8. OFFENDER: Yes, I do.
9. HER HONOUR: All right, thank you.

1. Dangerous driving causing serious injury is a serious motor vehicle offence pursuant to section 87P(d) of the Sentencing Act 1991 and on a finding of guilt the Court must cancel an offender's driver's licence and disqualify them from driving for a period specified by the Court and not less than 18 months.[5] Pursuant to section 89(2) of the Act,[6] I therefore cancel your licence and disqualify you from obtaining another for a period of 18 months.
2. I should also note, there is an offset provision on the community correction order, so any hours of mental health treatment can be offset against community work.
3. Thank you. I have every confidence Ms Treloar that you will finish that order.
4. OFFENDER: Thank you.
5. HER HONOUR: Thanks Ms Clark for your submissions. Mr O'Doherty, thanks very much.
6. MR O'DOHERTY: Thank you.
7. HER HONOUR: We will adjourn the court.

[1] Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) s 3(1).

[2] Azzopardi v The Queen [2011] VSCA 372; (2011) 35 VR 43 [34] - [36].

[3] Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) s 5.

[4] Boulton v The Queen [2014] VSCA 342.

[5] Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) s 87P(d).

[6] Ibid s 89(2).