1 This is an appeal against the sentence imposed by a judge of the County Court for two counts of culpable driving; one count of reckless conduct endangering life; two counts of negligently causing serious injury; as well as the summary offences of driving whilst authorisation was suspended and having a blood alcohol level in excess of the prescribed concentration. The appellant pleaded guilty to all offences.
2 On the evening of 2 July 2004, the appellant drove to a friend's home at Dandenong. The appellant, together with the occupant of the Dandenong residence and another friend of the appellant, then drove to a hotel in Frankston. On the way, the three purchased and drank four small bottles of pre-mixed bourbon and coke. At the hotel, the appellant drank nine pints of full strength beer. The three later drove back to the Dandenong residence. The appellant did not drive either from or to the hotel in Frankston. He declined an offer to stay the night at his friend's house in Dandenong and decided to drive to his home in Hallam. He drove along the Princes Highway and as he did so, he travelled at very high speeds. Two separate groups of witnesses saw the appellant travelling between 100 to 140 kilometres per hour in an 80 kph zone. A reconstruction of the events subsequently showed that the appellant was driving at approximately 140 kph in an 80 kph zone.
3 Shortly after the sightings of the appellant, he passed through a red light and collided with a Nissan coupe in the process of executing a right-hand turn. Moments before the collision, the police, attending to other matters on the highway, saw the appellant drive past at between 120 and 140 kph in the 80 kph zone. The appellant sounded his horn and waved at the police and the group to which they were attending. The front of the appellant's vehicle struck the passenger rear side of the Nissan coupe. The car travelled eight metres from the point of impact and struck the on ramp to the freeway. The rear of the Nissan coupe was twisted around towards the front end of the vehicle and was effectively split in two.
4 Two passengers of the Nissan, Cassandra Sprie and Michael Sheridan, died at the scene. Ms Sprie was thrown from the Nissan. Mr Sheridan was seated in the back of that vehicle. Two other passengers, Kristoffer Stella and Katie Clark, received serious injuries. Mr Stella was thrown from the Nissan and was later airlifted to the Alfred Hospital where he was treated for lacerations (especially to the scalp), a fractured rib and other serious injuries. Ms Clark was also flown to the Alfred Hospital for treatment for her injuries. The severe physical effects of the accident on these people remain. The driver of the Nissan coupe, Brendon Cropley, received minor injuries.
5 The appellant was apprehended at the scene. He was initially aggressive and believed that the other car had driven through the green light. According to a blood alcohol test taken at the Dandenong Hospital, the appellant had a blood alcohol content of 0.202 percent, an hour and ten minutes after the collision. A later estimate revealed that the appellant's alcohol level at the time of the collision was between 0.198 percent and 0.225 percent. It was clear that the appellant was incapable of having proper control of a vehicle.
6 After release from the hospital, the appellant was arrested. During an interview with the police, the appellant remained under the misconception that he had travelled through a green light and that the other vehicle had caused the collision. However, during the course of the interview, the appellant admitted to the extent of his drinking and that he was aware that he was not fit to drive. The appellant further admitted to not being properly licensed to drive. The appellant admitted to 13 prior convictions. These include two prior convictions for exceeding the blood alcohol limit, two prior convictions for careless driving, and two prior convictions for exceeding the speed limit. The appellant has a history of driving without the requisite license.
7 Six weeks before the accident, on 16 May 2004, the appellant was intercepted in Hallam Road and charged with failing to wear a seatbelt, driving whilst authorisation was suspended, and not having an experienced driver seated in the car. The appellant was due to appear in the Magistrates' Court with respect to these matters on 8 July 2004 (five days after the collision). This matter was eventually dealt with on 4 November 2004 in the Magistrates' Court. Also on that occasion, the appellant was dealt with for theft of a motor car which he had been driving when pulled over for drink driving in June 2003. The appellant was fined $1250 together with costs; disqualified from obtaining a license for 18 months; and sentenced to a term of three months' imprisonment, wholly suspended for 12 months. Although these offences occurred prior to 3 July 2004, the convictions of the appellant did not accrue to him until after the day of the incident at hand on 3 July 2004. However, although they do not count as prior convictions, they may be considered. As noted by the sentencing judge, they demonstrate a contempt by the appellant for the law as it applies on our roads. Further, it illustrates an indifference for the safety of other road users.
8 The appellant is 27, married and the father of three children. He and his wife have intermittently separated during their marriage. While originally from Western Samoa, the appellant came here with his family in 1995 after a period in New Zealand. Having failed to finish an apprenticeship, the appellant initially went from job to job and suffered periods of unemployment. At the time of these events, the appellant was working with his father at a brake manufacturing company.
9 Attention was given on the plea to the appellant's personal circumstances. It is evident that the appellant has suffered from a drinking problem. Personal accounts of others before the sentencing judge speak of qualities such as the appellant's love for his children and his deep remorse since the incident. In prison, the appellant has undergone a course in alcohol management as well as vocational training. The appellant has been described as a model prisoner. The sentencing judge was "cautiously optimistic" as to the appellant's prospects for rehabilitation.
10 In the reasons, the sentencing judge observed that the offences were all "serious examples of serious offences" and stood at the higher end of offences of this kind. Her Honour noted: