Subjective case
8 The respondent was forty-seven years old at the time of the offences and is now forty-nine. She had a traffic record, of little significance for present purposes, but no previous convictions. She is married, although she was separated from her husband at the relevant time. That union produced a son, who was then in his mid-teens. She had two children, now adults, from a previous marriage.
9 Even though the relationship was over, her husband remained supportive of her and gave evidence. Also before his Honour were a pre-sentence report and a number of medical reports. She had worked as a teacher's aide until she suffered a back injury in the mid-nineties. Since then she has had a number of health problems, both physical and mental. Difficulties faced by the children of her first marriage contributed to her mental state. At times both of them were living with her and her present husband. The son of the first marriage was a heroin addict, was prone to stealing and was suicidal. The daughter of that marriage became pregnant at the age of fifteen.
10 The respondent's husband summarised the situation in this way:
Our marriage had been failing: the stress of Candy's nervous breakdowns; Michael the eldest son, his heroin addictions; Kelly, Candy's daughter, she'd at 15 years old, got pregnant, came home - we had six, seven people living in the house and I was trying to run the house because Candy was too sick to. We had doctors coming backwards and forwards. Most of the time Candy lives in the bedroom I suppose. So … that was what basically pulled the marriage apart. I've stayed as a friend and I go back and have time with my son most weekends, holidays.
11 He also explained that she was very close to their own son, William, who had helped care for her in recent years. As he put it, "William's the sole purpose for Candy to live …". This is significant when one considers her explanation for driving on 3 September 2001, while her licence was suspended and her car unregistered. She told police and the Probation and Parole officer that she needed to pick up William from school to take him to an appointment relating to his further education, and that she had arranged for a friend to drive her for this purpose but the friend had let her down.
12 Morphine and diazepam were both drugs which she had been prescribed. She was taking morphine as a slow release narcotic for her back pain and the diazepam as a sleeping draught. These were but two of a large number of drugs, including anti-depressant medications, which she had been prescribed over the years. A medical report described a history of "multiple physical problems", including restless leg syndrome, pain syndrome and chronic back problems. In September 2000 she underwent lumbar spinal stabilisation surgery, but this did not relieve her pain.
13 Perhaps not surprisingly in all the circumstances, she had also been diagnosed as suffering from a major depressive disorder. She tried many anti-depressant medications but they did not help her. She had one admission to a psychiatric unit because of suicidal thoughts. She told the Probation and Parole officer that she felt "helpless and hopeless" about her medical conditions and resented having to rely upon medication to function.
14 Notwithstanding her plea of guilty to the first charge of dangerous driving occasioning grievous bodily harm, she told the Probation and Parole officer that she did not consider that she had been at fault in that accident. As to the accident the subject of the second charge on the indictment, however, she expressed contrition which the officer accepted as genuine. In a handwritten statement to the sentencing judge she described her offences generally as "unforgiveable". She wrote that she felt she had made progress, with support, in the period leading up to sentence and that she had begun to appreciate that there other ways of dealing with her many problems than resort to medication.