The applicant was driving on an undivided highway when she drove into the rear of another vehicle that had just commenced a right hand turn off the highway. The driver of the second vehicle died of head injuries at the scene. The applicant had been distracted by her mobile phone, with data analysis indicating that shortly before the collision she had sent a text and opened and closed Instagram. Mitigating factors were the applicant's early plea of guilty, her genuine and profound remorse, her excellent prospects of rehabilitation, and the effect of her own and her husband's fragile mental health on her experience of imprisonment. The applicant was sentenced to 3 years and 4 months' imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 2 years. The Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal against sentence.

1. Ms Ritchie accepted that the sentences imposed in these cases are not precedents, but said that they could assist in assessing where an offence falls on a spectrum of offending. She submitted that, when compared with other cases of objectively more serious offending, the sentence imposed in her case invited scrutiny.

1. Section 5(2)(b) of the Sentencing Act requires a court to have regard to current sentencing practices, as one of the mandatory considerations to be taken into account in sentencing an offender. Current sentencing practices are one of many factors relevant to the sentencing discretion; they are not the controlling factor.[59] Comparable sentences are not precedents, and do not set boundaries on the sentence that a court may reasonably impose. Rather, they are a measure that informs the range of sentences that would achieve consistency in sentencing.[60]
2. The comparable sentences referred to by Ms Ritchie did not support her contention that the sentence imposed on her was outside the acceptable range for her offending. Of the cases referred to, Harvey and Hall involved sentences similar to that imposed on Ms Ritchie. Browne had unique features that meant it was of little, if any, assistance as a comparator.[61] The remaining two cases, Younis and Ziro, concerned two dangerous drivers who shared responsibility for the tragic consequences of their collision, in circumstances not readily comparable with this case.
3. In addition, the sentencing judge was referred to a number of other sentences imposed for the offence of dangerous driving causing death, which indicated that the sentence imposed on Ms Ritchie was within a range that was consistent with current sentencing practices.[62]

1. Of course, the matters raised for consideration by Ms Ritchie were not the only matters that the judge had to take into account in determining the appropriate sentence for the offence. Deterrence, denunciation, and protection of the community were all significant factors in this case, and the judge correctly brought them into account in exercising the sentencing discretion.[63]
2. Overall, I am not persuaded that the sentence was wholly outside the range of sentencing options available to the judge. I consider that the sentence was reasonably open in all the circumstances of this case, in particular the judge's unchallenged finding that the offending was above the mid-range on the spectrum of seriousness for the offence. I would therefore refuse the application for leave to appeal.

[1] DPP v Ritchie [2023] VCC 2106 ('Reasons').

[10] Reasons, [1]-[6], [16]-[20].

[23] Reasons, [54]-[58], referring to Stephens v The Queen [2016] VSCA 121; (2016) 50 VR 740, 745-6 [21] (Redlich, Santamaria and Beach JJA); [2016] VSCA 121 ('Stephens'); Sentencing Act 1991, ss 3(1) (definition of 'category 2 offence', para (eb)), 5(2H).

[29] Reasons, [68], referring to Worboyes v The Queen [2021] VSCA 169; (2021) 96 MVR 344, 356-7 [39] (Priest, Kaye and T Forrest JJA); [2021] VSCA 169.

[30] Barbaro & Zirilli v The Queen [2012] VSCA 288; (2012) 226 A Crim R 354, 365 [36] (Maxwell P, Harper JA and T Forrest AJA); [2012] VSCA 288.

[35] Reasons, [78], referring to Akoka v The Queen [2017] VSCA 214.

[36] Reasons, [79]-[83], referring to R v Verdins [2007] VSCA 102; (2007) 16 VR 269, 276 [32] (Maxwell P, Buchanan and Vincent JJA); [2007] VSCA 102.

[37] Reasons, [85]-[92] (citations omitted).

[38] Clarkson v The Queen [2011] VSCA 157; (2011) 32 VR 361, 384 [89] (Maxwell ACJ, Nettle, Neave, Redlich and Harper JJA); [2011] VSCA 157; Leimonitis v The Queen [2018] VSCA 198, [32] (Priest JA, Weinberg JA agreeing at [38]); Papagelou v The Queen [2022] VSCA 53; (2022) 99 MVR 232, 240 [30] (Priest and T Forrest JJA); [2022] VSCA 53.

[39] Sentencing Act, s 3(1) (definition of 'category 2 offence', para (eb)).

[40] Stephens [2016] VSCA 121; (2016) 50 VR 740, 748 [33] (Redlich, Santamaria and Beach JJA); [2016] VSCA 121.

[41] DPP v Neethling [2009] VSCA 116; (2009) 22 VR 466, 473 [33], 474 [38] (Maxwell P, Vincent JA and Hargrave AJA); [2009] VSCA 116; Stephens [2016] VSCA 121; (2016) 50 VR 740, 745-6 [21]-[26] (Redlich, Santamaria and Beach JJA); [2016] VSCA 121; Woldesilassie v The Queen [2018] VSCA 285; (2018) 86 MVR 414, 420-1 [21]-[26] (Maxwell P and Kaye JA); [2018] VSCA 285.

[42] Stephens [2016] VSCA 121; (2016) 50 VR 740, [25]-[26] (Redlich, Santamaria and Beach JJA); [2016] VSCA 121.

[43] Contrary to s 318 of the Crimes Act 1958. The maximum penalty for culpable driving causing death is 20 years' imprisonment, and the standard sentence for the offence is 8 years.

[50] Reasons, [31]-[35], [69], [75].

[52] Reasons, [51], set out a [18] above.

[53] Stephens [2016] VSCA 121; (2016) 50 VR 740, 747 [26] (Redlich, Santamaria and Beach JJA); [2016] VSCA 121.

[54] (2023) 103 MVR 226; [2023] VSCA 13 ('Browne').

[55] (2023) 105 MVR 373; [2023] VSCA 234 ('Harvey').

[56] (2024) 107 MVR 139; [2024] VSCA 64 ('Younis').

[57] [2021] VCC 1187 ('Ziro').

[58] [2024] VSCA 255 ('Hall').

[59] Sentencing Act, s 5(2); DPP v Dalgliesh [2017] HCA 41; (2017) 262 CLR 428, 434 [9], 444 [48] (Kiefel CJ, Bell and Keane JJ), 453 [82] (Gageler and Gordon JJ); [2017] HCA 41 ('Dalgliesh').

[60] R v Kilic [2016] HCA 48; (2016) 259 CLR 256, 267-8 [22]-[24] (Bell, Gageler, Keane, Nettle and Gordon JJ); [2016] HCA 48; Dalgliesh [2017] HCA 41; (2017) 262 CLR 428, 444-5 [50] (Kiefel CJ, Bell and Keane JJ), 453 [83] (Gageler and Gordon JJ); [2017] HCA 41.

[61] Browne [2023] VSCA 13; (2023) 103 MVR 226, 248 [103] (Kyrou, T Forrest and Kennedy JJA); [2023] VSCA 13.

[62] DPP v Stubbs [2017] VCC 1000; DPP v Elliott [2017] VCC 282; DPP v Weybury (2018) 84 MVR 153; [2018] VSCA 120; Woldesilassie v The Queen (2018) 86 MVR 414; [2018] VSCA 285; Peers v The Queen (2021) 97 MVR 379; [2021] VSCA 264; Hague v The Queen (2022) 98 MVR 503; [2022] VSCA 17.

[63] Reasons, [85]-[91], set out at [277] above.