DPP v Zhang [2025] VCC 293

1. I must make an assessment of the objective gravity of your offending and your moral culpability for it.
2. In this assessment, I have already observed that you did not suffer from any physical or mental infirmities; your car was mechanically sound and roadworthy; you were not seen to be driving erratically before the collision; you have no history of prior criminal convictions for bad driving; there were no electronic or other devices operating to distract you; you were not reaching into a bag or otherwise searching for a phone, and you were not affected by drugs or alcohol.
3. In short, the collision was caused by prolonged inattention. The risk of harm which actually eventuated was high. I turn to consider then prolonged inattention.

1. Mr Hardjadibrata, who prosecuted this matter on behalf of the Director, submitted that your driving was dangerous because of your prolonged inattention. Mr Hardjadibrata submits that you were inattentive of the give-way sign from at least the first rumble strips which were 419 metres or 25.25 seconds, that is travelling at 60 kilometres an hour, from the intersection. Further, the Crown submits that the intersection and particularly the lead up to the intersection, as I have set out, was clearly and sufficiently marked to give an attentive driver sufficient warning of the obligation to give way ahead.
2. In support of his submissions, Mr Hardjadibrata played video footage taken the following day by investigating police who, following the route taken by you along Swan Bay Road, pointed out each of the warning indicators leading to the intersection.
3. The police accident reconstruction team made observations, took measurements and provided calculations based on your observed speed of 60 kilometres an hour from 412 metres away from the intersection:
   1. First, there were the rumble strips at 419 metres which put you 25.25 seconds from the intersection based on a time to impact of 60 kilometres an hour.
   2. Next there were give-way advisory signs and a 60 kilometre an hour speed limit sign at 412 metres from the intersection, that is 24.81 seconds from the point of impact.
   3. Next there were rumble strips 348 metres out, 20.96 seconds from the point of impact.
   4. There was a 60 kilometre an hour speed limit sign, 274 metres from the intersection or 16.5 seconds from the point of impact.
   5. There were rumble strips 250 metres out from the intersection, 15.54 seconds from the point of impact.
   6. There was a give-way sign at 249 metres or 15 seconds from the point of impact.
   7. There was a C126 route sign at 179 metres from the intersection or 10.78 seconds from the intersection.
   8. And then, as Detective Hay noted, the download in the black box of your car started at 83 metres from the intersection or five seconds from the point of impact.
4. Mr Hill on your behalf submits that:
   1. Although inattention is conceded, (and without specifying a period for which, or nominating an indicator from the table from which, it is conceded you were inattentive), the prosecution cannot prove that you were inattentive from the first rumble strips; and ‑ ‑ ‑

1. that the environmental and physical conditions in the lead up to the intersection itself, were inherently dangerous.

1. Mr Hill's submission on the first point is this: you were seen by Mr Jackson to be driving appropriately for some kilometres along Swan Bay Road, and, at the first indicator/sign, you slowed from 80 kilometres an hour to 60 kilometres an hour and you maintained that lower speed. That, Mr Hill submits, is the conduct of an attentive driver. Thereafter Mr Jackson stated that you drove compliantly and uneventfully. And Mr Hill points to and relies on that.
2. Mr Hill submits that the only point from which I can be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that you were inattentive of the intersection and your obligation to give way is from when Mr Jackson slowed and you did not brake. The only certainty, he submits, is that five seconds before the collision which your car's black box proves that you did not brake, that is about 83 metres back from the intersection.
3. The second submission is that:
   1. in the lead up to the intersection, although you passed through the indicators pointed out by the police and the Crown, there were other distractions such as the narrow road, the double lines, the roadside barriers close to the road's edge, the presence of foliage and slight inclines, which at least at the first of the rumble strips, blocked your view of what lay ahead;
   2. still further along, that there was foliage which obscured or at least shaded signs (noting that the police drive through was conducted on a different day and at a different time and in different conditions to the collision);
   3. that the intersection was somewhat degraded: the lines were faint, one of the give-way signs was turned away from oncoming traffic;
   4. according to the expert transport engineering report of Paul Durdin, the give-way sign at 249 metres was incorrectly positioned and should have been located between 120 to 180 metres from the intersection. Mr Durden opines that signs too far from the hazard reduced the effectiveness of the sign, as the motorist does not need to respond until well past the sign. This, he opines, could have contributed to you failing to notice the intersection;
   5. inherent dangers of the intersection were implicitly acknowledged by the subsequent upgrade changes made. These included turning the intersection control from a give-way sign to a stop sign;
   6. anecdotally, locals and police had commented that it was considered a dangerous intersection.
4. I may not take facts into account in a way adverse to your interests unless those facts have been established beyond reasonable doubt. In that respect I refer to R v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270; Le v R [2019] VSCA 80, [81].
5. I am satisfied that you were inattentive for more than five seconds recorded by the car's black box where you did not brake because you were inattentive of one or more of the following:
   • that the intersection was ahead of you; and/or
   • that you faced a sign and obligation to give way at the intersection; and/or
   • Ms Watts' car was present, approaching and entering the intersection with right of way.
6. I am not satisfied that you were inattentive from the first rumble strips and then signs indicating give way and reduction of speed, because the evidence of Mr Jackson is that you did reduce your speed and that you thereafter drove at a speed of approximately 60 kilometres an hour, and that you drove normally and lawfully.
7. In these circumstances, whilst I conclude that you were inattentive for a prolonged period of time and distance, I am unable to conclude either a point in time or pinpoint a distance or even otherwise estimate a range in which you were inattentive.
8. I conclude that the changes to the intersection were considered necessary because the give-way signs did not afford sufficient protection to drivers on the Queenscliff-Portarlington Road. I further conclude that the lead up to the intersection along Swan Bay road presented some dips, rises, foliage and narrowness of road. These are the reality of driving outside suburban areas. Together with the signs that were present and the view of the intersection, marked by a give-way sign on the roadside and another give-way sign, albeit turned in the traffic island, these factors called for extra vigilance.
9. I take these factors of imperfection into account to some extent, and I have regard to the deficiency of and the location of the signs observed and commented on by Mr Durden. These factors can only moderately, but not significantly, mitigate the circumstances of your inattention leading to the collision.

1. My assessment of the objective gravity of your offending must take into account the impact your conduct has had on the family of Ms Watts.
2. The statements provided to me show that the loss of Ms Watts is still keenly felt by her family, her friends, her colleagues and the wider equestrian community.
3. In particular, I note the statement of Ms Watts' parents, Sue and Geoff Watts, who describe their loss as 'devastatingly traumatic' and eloquently highlight the emotional toll taken on them in receiving the news and organising their daughter's affairs in the days and weeks after the incident. Mr and Mrs Watts speak of the flashbacks and pain they continue to feel, both on days significant to their daughter and when exposed to unrelated triggers in the community.
4. Ms Watts' sisters, Emily and Samantha, echo the sentiments of their parents. Emily speaks of how her life has been put on hold since the accident, delaying study, further career opportunities and developing social anxiety. Samantha, a Victoria Police member, describes the pain of losing her sister and best friend and poignantly describes the heartbreak she felt every time she was forced to walk past the Christmas tree in the Victoria Police Centre, which displays the names and ages of people who have lost their lives on the roads.
5. I have also received a number of statements from Ms Watts' extended family and close personal friends in the equestrian community. Through these it is evident that Ms Watts was an incredibly vibrant young woman, a true confidante to many and passionate about her work, horses and the people she worked with. I am informed that two perpetual equestrian awards have been named in her honour, and it is pleasing to see that Ms Watts continues to be remembered. It is clear that Ms Watts has touched many and I thank all those who have contributed to the victim impact process.
6. Finally, I turn to the statement of Ross McDonald, who has been no less affected by these events. As a result of the accident, Mr McDonald says he is 'forever changed'. He now suffers from PTSD and shock and had to take time off work, causing considerable financial stress. Perhaps most concerning is the mental state of Mr McDonald's son Finley, who was also in the car at the time of the accident. Since then, Mr McDonald recounts how Finley has had recurring bad dreams about car crashes and has become fixated on the accident and is now a very nervous passenger. Mr McDonald states that Finley is presently seeing a psychologist to help him deal with the PTSD he now suffers. It is my hope that today brings with it a sense of closure for everyone affected.

1. It is necessary to set out the statutory framework which applies to sentencing considerations in this matter.
2. As I have already said, the offence of dangerous driving causing death is a Category 2 offence. The Sentencing Act therefore requires that I must make an order for imprisonment (excluding an order for a combination sentence of imprisonment with a community corrections order) unless - and this being the only limb argued - you establish on the balance of probabilities that you have impaired mental functioning which would result in you being subject to substantially and materially greater than the ordinary burden or risks of imprisonment;
3. Your counsel submitted that the evidence meets the requirements of this exclusion.

1. 'Impaired mental functioning' has the same meaning as 'mental illness' under the Mental Health and Wellbeing Act. Essentially, a mental illness is a medical condition that is characterised by a significant disturbance of thought, mood, perception or memory.
2. The impairment to your mental functioning must subject you to substantially and materially greater than the ordinary burden or risks of imprisonment. 'Substantial' may be variously defined as 'of considerable importance' or 'real and tangible rather than imaginary'. 'Materially' may be defined as 'to an important degree' or 'considerably'.[2]
3. I will return to the question of the objective gravity and seriousness of the offending and moral culpability after I consider the submissions of each counsel.
4. It is appropriate now to consider your personal circumstances.

1. You were born in China in June 1957, and you are now 67 years old.
2. You are the eldest of four children. You grew up with your two younger brothers and a younger sister in the Hebei Province and then in Beijing.
3. You report that you grew up 'in a good family'. Your father was a public servant, and your mother was an accountant. You remain close with your family, who all reside in China. Before the Covid pandemic and this proceeding you would visit your parents every year. Although now elderly, you have not been able to see them because of Covid and then of the restrictions on your travel, so it has been about five years.
4. You completed your medical degree at Hebei Medical College in 1982 and followed by surgical training at the Beijing Postgraduate Medical School.
5. In early 1990s you moved to Australia and completed cardio surgical training in Melbourne at St Vincents, then at the Austin, the Alfred, the Royal Melbourne Hospital. In later years, you completed further training in the US, Canada and Germany.
6. You became an Australian citizen after you settled in Australia.
7. You moved to and worked in Geelong Hospital since the early 2000s. Initially you set up the cardiothoracic surgical unit at St John of God, then became a director of surgery with Barwon Health in about 2005. You have worked at the University Hospital since about that time, 2005.
8. You have had a distinguished career; focusing on cardiothoracic surgery and specialising in 'minimally invasive' surgical procedures. Dr Daryl Ridley, cardiologist and electrophysiologist, told the court that your work was 'pioneering'. Through your constant study and travel to learn new techniques, you brought surgical innovations to the Geelong area.
9. You have complemented your surgical work, which has largely been in the public sector, with teaching. Dr Ridley described you as a conscientious teacher.
10. After the collision, you stepped back from private sector work and complex procedures. As your health has deteriorated, and I will say more of that shortly, you have now resigned your position and you are not practising medicine at all, although you still hold current registration. I understand that AHPRA will review your registration after these proceedings are concluded.
11. You were married and had a daughter who trained as an architect. Your daughter now lives overseas. Your first wife died in 2007. You married Julie, who was present at these proceedings, marrying in 2017. Julie's adult son was also present at the hearings to support you. Julie holds a senior role in a pharmaceutical company and splits her working life between Melbourne and Singapore. You have always had a close relationship, but you became increasingly dependent on her as your mental health deteriorated and you stepped back from your work roles. You bail was varied to allow you to travel to Singapore for a period of time to be with your wife.
12. After the collision, you commenced receiving counselling from psychologist Chris Mackey from 7 July 2022. Mr Mackey provided a report dated 15 June 2023, concluding that you suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder and major depressive disorder. To the point of that report, Mr Mackey saw you 11 times, and you saw him subsequent to that. Unfortunately, Mr Mackey was killed in a single car accident in late 2023. That accident exacerbated your mental health issues.
13. You have now moved away from Geelong and live in Melbourne.
14. You provided a letter of apology, which I have read. In the circumstances, I consider your remorse to be genuine.

1. You initially saw Patrick Newton psychologist for the provision of a forensic psychological report. After Mr Mackey died, Mr Newton agreed to provide you with clinical counselling and support.
2. Mr Newton has practised as a psychologist for over 26 years. Both Mr Newton and Professor Sullivan, who also gave evidence in this matter, are highly experienced mental health practitioners.
3. You continue to suffer significant distress, intrusive recollections, ongoing sleep disturbance, generally elevated levels of hyper arousal and fatigue, social withdrawal and bouts of suicidal ideation.
4. In his report dated 13 January 2024, Mr Newton concluded that you met the criteria for major depressive disorder with a moderate level of clinical severity which persisted despite prescription to antidepressant medication and psychological counselling. Mr Newton noted emotional, cognitive, behavioural and physical symptoms of depression. Your depression is heightened by your sense of responsibility for causing the collision. The feeling of responsibility has shaken your self-esteem; you feel stupid, inadequate and uncertain.
5. Mr Newton considers you developed post-traumatic stress disorder in the aftermath of March 2022. Whilst you have received medical and psychological treatment, Mr Newton considers that the condition has persisted, and you continued to suffer the core features of the condition. Mr Newton considered in his report that there was a marked risk that your mental health could deteriorate if the treatment was discontinued 'precipitously under increased stress'.
6. Mr Newton reports both post-traumatic stress disorder and major depressive disorder are 'mental illnesses' under the Mental Health and Wellbeing Act.
7. In his evidence before me, Mr Newton reiterated his opinion that you suffer from a severe depressive disorder and from PTSD. Mr Newton provided considerable updated detail to and around the matters I have just outlined. He reported that your wife took you to Box Hill ED for your symptoms. He considers your grief and remorse as genuine, heartfelt and intensely expressed. You continue to express significant distress, depression, anxiety and panic attacks and present with a strong suicidal ideation. You still express feelings of guilt and have persistent thoughts that you would be better off dead and feel there is little prospect that your life will improve.
8. Mr Newton told the court that imprisonment would very likely trigger an exacerbation of your PTSD and major depressive disorder. He stated there is no reasonable prospect that you will receive the treatment you require in a custodial environment.
9. Under cross-examination, Mr Newton gave evidence of the difficulties and often impossibilities of providing private psychological services to prisoners. He stated from his experience that you could not receive the psychological counselling and psychiatric oversight, therapy, and medication you require. Put simply, you could not receive the equivalent, or the certainty, of treatment you require in prison, whether through the prison system providing it or privately. Even if you were allowed such treatment privately, it could only be provided by telehealth and not in person. From his experience, Mr Newton stated that telehealth is not always reliable, the prison may have problems providing links, the quality of the link is not always satisfactory or sufficient, and the 'removed' nature of the psychological counselling can hinder the therapeutic process.
10. Mr Newton considered that whilst PTSD and major depressive disorder were commonplace amongst prisoners, your symptoms were moderate to severe, chronic, treatment resistant and comorbid. The concatenation of these factors makes your mental health situation unusual in Mr Newton's experience.

1. Professor Sullivan provided a report dated 27 November 2023 and gave evidence before me.
2. In his 2023 report Professor Sullivan stated:

Since the accident, Dr Zhang has developed a major depressive disorder of moderate severity. This is a significant disturbance of mood, which also has effects on thought and memory. His depression is manifested in cognitive symptoms (such as guilt, hopelessness and worthlessness), as well as biological symptoms (psychomotor retardation, impaired sleep, reduced appetite). Furthermore, cognitive testing demonstrates mild cognitive impairment consistent with that observed in depressive illnesses, particularly in older people. Dr Zhang notes that he has moderated his surgical practice, and it is likely that he is relying on technical proficiency and the support of the team to compensate for the negative impact of depressed mood.

I agree with the diagnosis made by his treating clinical psychologist of post-traumatic stress disorder. This is manifested in reexperiencing, avoidance and emotional disturbance.

I consider that incarceration would be significantly burdensome for Dr Zhang. Not only has he no prior experience of incarceration but his depressive disorder would almost certainly deteriorate. Although he would be able to continue medication, he would have no access to the psychological intervention he currently receives. I would be concerned that incarceration would significantly exacerbate his suicide risk. In addition, Dr Zhang's background would likely render him vulnerable to predation by others.

1. Professor Sullivan reviewed Mr Mackey's letter and Mr Newton's reports. He respects Mr Newton's opinions and considered Newton's conclusions consistent with what he saw in you.
2. Professor Sullivan considers your major depressive disorder has worsened over time and is now moderate to severe. You have experienced a greater degree of depression and a greater degree of cognitive impairment over time.
3. Under cross-examination, Professor Sullivan stated that he considered the court case was probably a major contributor to your 'situation', but even without the court case you are anxious and depressed. Without intervention, he considered your symptoms would escalate.
4. Professor Sullivan has a long association with Forensicare. In his role as a treating psychiatrist and director of psychiatric services at Forensicare, he has an intimate and indeed unsurpassed experience and understanding of the provision of mental health care to prisoners.
5. Professor Sullivan considers that whilst you could continue medication in prison, your mental health is likely to worsen significantly. You could not access psychological services in prison, the services are nurse-led, psychiatric services are rationed, and no psychological services are available for mood disorders. The services available are group-based short programs dealing with general problems and not those specific to you.
6. Professor Sullivan reiterated that prison mental health services are not equipped to deal with the problems of your magnitude. These problems would be exacerbated in prison. Your problems are not in the nature of an adjustment disorder and will not resolve with the case concluding.

1. I received a number of references from members of your family, friends and colleagues. All references speak of your dedication to your work, your calm and caring nature, the deep remorse you express and the drastic change in you following this offence.
2. Your wife Julie writes of your reliable, trustworthy and generous nature. She emphasises your supportive nature and commitment not only to your work and patients, but further, to her and your family. In particular, Julie speaks of your unwavering support during her mother's struggle with Alzheimer's disease. Your kind-hearted and supportive nature is echoed in various references that refer to the period in which, despite the demands of your work, you cared for your first wife who sadly passed away from cancer.
3. It is evident that members of your family consider you a role model, as expressed by your stepson, nephew, and your son-in-law. Indeed, in times of need you have provided them with support, mentorship, advice and guidance.
4. I have also been provided with a series of references from several of your colleagues who have known and worked with you for more than 20 years. What is clear from these references is that your work as a cardiothoracic surgeon has had a significant and positive effect on the Geelong community. You are described as honest, hardworking and a conscientious person who is highly regarded and respected by all staff, colleagues and your patients. Further, your acquired knowledge and surgical skills are stated as excellent, and it is evident that you have worked tirelessly and you have saved an enormous number of lives within the region. These references also speak of the leadership you have shown through your work, teaching the next generation of cardiothoracic surgeons the most up-to-date techniques that you source from overseas and the volunteer work that you have done in the field.
5. All references speak of your cautious nature and the shock of learning that you were involved in offending of such a serious nature. They describe your offending as being completely out of character and at odds with your devotion to saving lives. Consequently, the man they once knew has changed considerably, with your mental well-being deteriorating.
6. Your wife acknowledged this psychological impact stating you have departed from the husband she once knew. Your stepson has found that you are more reserved, and distance yourself from others. Further, your wife has expressed her concern about your mental health and continuing nightmares, and she is watchful of you to ensure you do not harm yourself.
7. Your colleagues have recognised a noticeable and drastic change in your demeanour and personality, having become withdrawn, sad in appearance, quiet, and lacking the confidence you once exuded. Each of your colleagues has described the deep remorse expressed by you to them.

1. Mr Hill KC with Ms Harris submitted that in addition to the matters I have extensively already outlined, the following factors should mitigate the sentence in this matter:
2. First of all, your plea of guilty. Mr Hill submits the plea has true utilitarian benefit and facilitates the course of justice as it is further evidence of your remorse.
3. Second, your good character. You have no prior convictions. You have dedicated your life to achieving positive outcomes for other people. Mr Hill submitted that I should assess you as a cautious and precise person and not as a risk taker.
4. Third, Mr Hill submitted that you have suffered extra curial punishment. You have now given up medical practice altogether although you have retained your registration with AHPRA. AHPRA will consider your registrable status at the conclusion of these proceedings.
5. Next, Mr Hill submits that the uncertainty of outcome, especially when the matter was listed as a trial on a charge that has now been withdrawn, weighed heavily on you. The matter was delayed when the matter was listed as a trial through no fault of yours.
6. And finally, Mr Hill submits you have excellent prospects of rehabilitation.

1. Mr Hardjadibrata submitted that the sentence to be imposed in this case heavily depends on the view I take of the seriousness of your offending and whether you establish an exception to the operation of s5(2H) Sentencing Act.
2. The prosecution maintains, as I have already covered, that the objective seriousness of your offending is high, taking into account the period and distance of inattention that it submits I should find, and for its submission that the state of the intersection did not contribute to your inattention.
3. Mr Hardjadabrata completed that part of his submissions by submitting that I should find that you were inattentive by at least the last rumble strips.
4. On the question of the exception under s5(2H), the prosecution implicitly accepted that you suffer from impaired mental functioning. Mr Hardjadabrata provided a letter dated 5 July 2024 from the unnamed Clinical Director of Adult Health Services at the Department of Justice and Community Safety. The letter, in my opinion, was entirely generic in its terms. After cross-examining both Mr Newton and Professor Sullivan, Mr Hardjadabrata frankly and fairly conceded that he could not rely on that part of his submissions to the effect that the exception to 5(2H) had not been established by your counsel, but rather, relied on the high burden, that is higher than establishing Verdins principles, which must be met before the exception can be established. In that respect he refers to Peers v R [2021] VSCA 264, [73].
5. I was referred to a number of comparable cases.
6. In the end, I must not be overly influenced by the outcomes in other cases. I must take into account the circumstances of your offending, Parliament's intention, and so far as I can, your personal circumstances, and arrive at a sentence appropriate in the circumstances of this case.

1. In my view the evidence establishes that you currently suffer from and are being treated for PTSD and major depressive disorder
2. I am satisfied that these conditions are mental illnesses; that is, medical conditions which cause significant disturbance to at least your thoughts, moods and perception. The illnesses manifest in the manner outlined by Mr Mackey, Mr Newton and Professor Sullivan, and have caused you to attend ED, to give up not only surgery but medical practice altogether, to have suicidal ideations, to withdraw socially almost entirely, and to make you significantly emotionally dependent on your wife. In short, your intellectual, professional, social and psychological functioning has been severely affected and deteriorated. It has not improved with medication and counselling. It is considered chronic.
3. Moreover, Mr Newton and Professor Sullivan are pessimistic about your prognosis should you go into custody. Both are clear that you cannot and will not receive anything close to an adequate level of care in the prison setting. The prosecution concedes this point.
4. Having regard to the matters outlined by the Court of Appeal in Peers at paragraphs 52 to 59, and the matters I have outlined extensively on this matter, I am satisfied that the exception to s5(2H)(c)(ii) is established; that is, that you have impaired mental functioning that would result in you being subject to substantially and materially greater than the ordinary burden or risks of imprisonment.
5. Of course that is not the end of the matter. It does not simply flow that a non-custodial sentence will be imposed - see Peers at paragraph 73.
6. I have previously concluded that I cannot precisely pinpoint the duration or distance over which you were inattentive; especially in circumstances where you had correctly reacted to a change in speed limit and otherwise driven lawfully and compliantly. And in that respect, I compare your driving to that in Peers. I have also concluded that the conditions leading to, and of the intersection, potentially marginally contributed to your inattention. Nevertheless, the objective gravity of your offending is still high, your driving put other road users at risk and the risk was realised in respect to Ms Watts, Mr McDonald and his young son.
7. These factors influence the assessment of the objective gravity of and your moral culpability for the offending.
8. I take into account other factors personal to you, that is:
   1. Your undisputed good character;
   2. Your undisputed remorse and guilt for the offending;
   3. The implicit operation of limbs 5 and 6 of Verdins, especially given my conclusion as to your current impaired mental functioning, the almost inevitable deterioration in your already precarious mental condition if you are imprisoned, and the lack of adequate care available in prison; and
   4. Your undoubted prospects for your rehabilitation.
9. Your previous good character speaks for itself.
10. I do not need to say any more about the operation of Verdins.
11. Further, your prospects for rehabilitation are excellent.
12. You were assessed as suitable for a community corrections order; you are a low risk of reoffending as the order recognises your mental health issues.
13. I have decided in all the circumstances that the principle of general deterrence can accommodate the imposition of a non-custodial sentence in this case. I do not take this decision lightly. I am acutely aware of the intention and presumption of Parliament, the various statements of sentencing principles, and the loss felt by the extended Watts family and friends.
14. Nevertheless, when I weigh the factors I have referred to, and I have weighed them extensively, I consider that your impairment is considerable and entirely genuine.
15. I consider that on the whole of the circumstances, both objective and personal to you, these factors militate towards the imposition of a non-custodial sentence.
16. The sentence I propose is a community corrections order over a period of 18 months with 120 hours of unpaid community work to be performed with a condition for assessment and treatment for mental health issues with the hours spent in mental health treatment reducing the hours of unpaid community work.
17. Dr Zhang, you have previously, as I say, been assessed as suitable for a community corrections order. Before I can ask you whether you are prepared to undertake such an order, there are a series of conditions that I must bring to your attention, and so I am going to raise each of those matters with you, I am going to ask you if you understand the condition that I am proposing to you and at the end I am going to ask if you consent to the order.
18. I want you to remain seated while I read them to you though.
19. The first is that you must not commit any offence for which you could be imprisoned during the time that the order is in force, that is any offence for which imprisonment is available even if a sentence of imprisonment is not imposed. You must not commit any offence whether in Victoria or outside. Do you understand that? You do not have to stand up, I just want you to say you either understand or you do not.
20. ACCUSED: Yes, I understand.
21. HIS HONOUR: You must comply with any obligation or requirement that is imposed on you during the term of the order by the Community Corrections Office. Do you understand your obligation to comply?
22. ACCUSED: I understand.
23. HIS HONOUR: You must report to and receive visits from Community Corrections staff. You must report to the Office of Corrections. The appropriate office specified is 50 Franklin Street in Melbourne. Mr Hargreaves will need to look at that in terms of Dr Zhang's address.
24. MR HARGREAVES: My understanding, sir, is that he is in North Melbourne, but he will attend ‑ ‑ ‑
25. HIS HONOUR: Oh, in North Melbourne, well then ‑ ‑ ‑
26. MR HARGREAVES: Sorry, I beg your pardon, North Balwyn. I'm sorry, sir.
27. HIS HONOUR: North Balwyn, that's what I thought.
28. MR HARGREAVES: Yes, sir. But Dr Zhang will attend any Corrections centre that's imposed, sir.
29. HIS HONOUR: I don't doubt that. But you must report to the Office of Corrections - it's specified here as 50 Franklin Street in Melbourne - within two clear working days of imposing the order. Do you understand the obligation to report?
30. ACCUSED: I understand.
31. HIS HONOUR: Do you understand that you must receive visits from - the visits can be at work, although you are not working at the moment, and home. If officers from Community Corrections wish to attend your home, they can.
32. ACCUSED: Yes, I understand.
33. HIS HONOUR: You must inform the Office of Corrections if you commence work again, change work address or move house within two clear working days of that change. Do you understand?
34. ACCUSED: I understand.
35. HIS HONOUR: You must not leave Victoria without first getting the permission of the Office of Corrections. So not for holiday, not for work or not to go to Singapore with your wife, you can only do so if you get permission from the Office of Corrections. Do you understand that?
36. ACCUSED: I understand.
37. HIS HONOUR: And you must obey all lawful instructions from the Office of Corrections during the term of the order. Do you understand that?
38. ACCUSED: I understand.
39. HIS HONOUR: All right. The specific conditions that I propose, Dr Zhang, are that you perform 120 hours of unpaid work. Do you understand?
40. ACCUSED: Yeah, I understand.
41. HIS HONOUR: I also propose an order that you undergo any mental health assessment and treatment including psychological, neuropsychological or psychiatric treatment in a hospital or residential facility if considered necessary as part of the order. That is a condition of the order, do you understand that?
42. ACCUSED: I understand.
43. HIS HONOUR: Do you also understand that hours of treatment will count towards the unpaid community work. So hours spent in treatment, psychological treatment will count towards the unpaid community work.
44. ACCUSED: Yes.
45. HIS HONOUR: I have considered the other recommendations of the Office of Corrections, and it is considered that you will receive sufficient supervision during the order by your continued visits to Mr Newton. So I do not intend to impose supervision.
46. In the circumstances, Dr Zhang, do you consent to the imposition of a community corrections order.
47. ACCUSED: Yes.
48. HIS HONOUR: All right, thank you. Mr Hargreaves, I am going to ask you to approach the dock and confirm.
49. MR HARGREAVES: Yes, sir, of course.
50. HIS HONOUR: Now.
51. MR HARGREAVES: Thank you, sir. Thank you, sir, I have explained all that to Dr Zhang.
52. HIS HONOUR: And you're satisfied that the consent is ‑ ‑ ‑
53. MR HARGREAVES: Yes, sir, and we've discussed it before as well.
54. HIS HONOUR: All right, thank you ‑ ‑ ‑
55. MR HARGREAVES: In the hope that this would happen.
56. HIS HONOUR: All right, thank you very much.
57. In the circumstances, Dr Zhang, on the charge of dangerous driving, you are convicted and ordered to undertake a community corrections order for a period of 18 months on the conditions that I have just outlined.
58. There is a summary charge which - is that to stay or is it to go.
59. MR HARGREAVES: My understanding, sir, was that the prosecution intended to withdraw that charge.
60. HIS HONOUR: Yes, I thought so.
61. MR HARGREAVES: Ms Dunn has confirmed that, sir.
62. HIS HONOUR: I will mark that struck out. I, Dr Zhang, disqualify you from holding a licence for a period of three years from today.
63. The 6AAA is but for the plea of guilty in this matter, all things being equal, I would have imposed a sentence of two years' imprisonment with one year to serve.
64. Is Mr Hardjadibrata still online.
65. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yes, he is, Your Honour.
66. HIS HONOUR: Mr Hardjadibrata, are there any other orders sought or any other matters to raise.
67. MR HARDJADIBRATA: (No audible response.)
68. HIS HONOUR: Ms Dunn, anything from your perspective that needs to be raised.
69. MS DUNN: No, Your Honour.
70. HIS HONOUR: All right then, I will have the order signed, I'll have the community corrections order signed and I'll sign it. I'll just stand down for a couple of moments.

1. They are all signed. There being nothing else, we will adjourn now.

[1] As defined in Part 1 Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic).