IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA	Revised
Not Restricted
Suitable for Publication	
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

CR 23-01073

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS		
		
v		
		
JESSICA GLENNIE		

---

JUDGE:	HIS HONOUR JUDGE LAURITSEN	
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne	
DATE OF HEARING:	12 December 2023 & 21 March 2024	
DATE OF SENTENCE:	22 March 2024	
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Glennie	
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2024] VCC 420	

REASONS FOR SENTENCE
---
Subject:	CRIMINAL LAW	
Catchwords: 	Charge of dangerous driving causing death – summary offence of driving a motor vehicle whilst exceeding the prescribed concentration of drugs – licence cancelled and disqualified for two years – passenger died when vehicle lost control and hit an electricity pole – no criminal history – gravity of offending is at lower end – significant moral culpability – remorse – good prospects of rehabilitation – specific deterrence and community protection of little importance – Application of Verdins limbs – delay – youth – injuries suffered forms part of punishment – existence of family hardship – early plea of guilty.
Legislation Cited:	Sentencing Act 1991 ss 5(1), 5(2H)(c)(ii), 5(2H)(e), 5(2I), 6AAA.
Cases Cited:	R v Verdins [2007] VSCA 102; Worboyes v R [2021] VSCA 169.
Sentence:	30-month community correction order. 
---

APPEARANCES:
	Counsel	Solicitors	
For the Director of Public Prosecutions	Ms L. Gurry	Office of Public Prosecutions	
			
For the Accused	Ms N. Smith	Victoria Legal Aid	

HIS HONOUR:
Introduction 
1	On Charge 1, which is the charge of dangerous driving causing death, I propose to convict Ms Glennie of that offence and place her upon a two- and half-year community correction order with these conditions:
(a)	to undertake any assessment or treatment for drug abuse or dependency;  
(b)	to undertake any assessment or treatment for alcohol abuse or dependency; 
(c)	undertake any mental health assessment and treatment; 
(d)	undertake any programme to address factors related to her offending behaviour; 
(e)	to be supervised, monitored and managed as directed by the Secretary.  
2	In order for me to make a community correction order, I need the consent of the person involved and at the end of these reasons I will ask Ms Glennie, through her counsel, whether in fact she does consent or not.
3	On the charge of dangerous driving causing death, I will in any event cancel any licence or permit that she holds to drive a motor vehicle and disqualify her from obtaining a licence or permit for two years. 
4	On the summary charge, I will fine Ms Glennie $400 and make the same order for cancellation and disqualification except the period is for a period of six months. The two periods of disqualification start today and quite obviously run concurrently. 
5	The fine I will refer to Fines Victoria for collection.
6	Ms Glennie, you pleaded guilty to a charge of dangerous driving causing death and the summary charge of driving a motor vehicle while more than the prescribed concentration of a drug was present in your blood.
7	The circumstances of your offending are set out in the document entitled 'Summary of prosecution opening, which is Exhibit A. 
Circumstances  
8	On 8 September 2021, your probationary driver licence was suspended for six months, resulting from an infringement notice for driving above the applicable speed limit. 
9	At about 11.55 pm on 25 September 2021, you drove your Holden utility south along Plumpton Road, Diggers Rest. You lost control of the utility and it struck an electricity pole on the eastern side of the roadway. You had a front seat passenger, Janelle Noonan-Long, who died as a result of the collision. She was your best friend. At the time, both you and Ms Noonan-Long were 22.  
10	Where the accident occurred, Plumpton Road is a relatively straight, bitumen roadway. The speed limit was 100 kilometres per hour. There is a lane for traffic proceeding each way. It was dark and there was no street lighting. The conditions were dry.
11	Both you and Ms Noonan-Long were employed as pizza delivery drivers in the same business in Sunbury. On 25 September, both of you finished work at about 8 pm. From work, both of you went in your utility to your home. 
12	Shortly after 10.35 pm, both of you returned to the pizza business in order to see a fellow employee. You brought alcohol with you, which was in a cooler box. At about 10.45 pm, you are seen drinking a shot of alcohol on CCTV. 
13	Shortly after 11.15 pm, both of you left the pizza business in your utility, ultimately with you driving south along Plumpton Road in Diggers Rest, you lost control and the utility started to rotate and struck an electricity pole just behind the 'B' pillar on the driver’s side. It then rolled up the pole, causing major damage to the cabin. The utility came to rest on its wheels on the road. A few moments of the passage of your vehicle to the collision is shown on CCTV footage, which I have viewed a number of times. 
14	Both you and Ms Noonan-Long were trapped inside the utility and were rescued after the roof was cut away. Ms Noonan-Long had been crushed by the roof and died. You were flown to the Royal Melbourne Hospital with life threatening injuries. 
15	At 2.20 am on 26 September, a blood sample was taken from you. On analysis, it contained 3 nanograms/millilitre of Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol and 0.05 grams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood. The presence of the drug is the basis of the summary charge of driving a motor vehicle while exceeding the prescribed concentration of a drug.  In this case, the prescribed concentration of the drug is nil. 
16	A reconstruction of the collision reveals the utility was travelling at a minimum between 55 and 61 kilometres per hour when control was lost and the collision occurred. The reconstruction could not say why you lost control. There was nothing about the utility itself which explained your loss of control. 
17	A forensic medical officer, Angela Sangaila, examined the results of the analysis of your blood sample. Because the sample was taken two and a half hours after the collision, she estimated your blood alcohol content at the time of the collision at between 0.075 per cent and 0.1 per cent. This range was based on the usual rate of elimination of alcohol of between 0.01 per cent to 0.02 per cent per hour. This estimate was significantly qualified: 
(a)	there may have been unabsorbed alcohol in your stomach. In the absence of a precise timeline of your drinking, Dr Sangaila could not say what was the total body alcohol content when the collision occurred; 
(b)	whatever the quantity of unabsorbed alcohol would not have added to your reading or level of impairment; 
(c)	if you had a slow rate of absorption and you had consumed alcohol very close to the time of the collision, this would lower the estimate and impairment. If you had the equivalent of two or more standard drinks in your stomach, then your blood alcohol reading would be as low as 0.05 or even lower. By way of an aside, as a probationary licence holder, your permissible blood alcohol content was zero; 
(d)	nevertheless, a blood alcohol concentration below 0.10 per cent can cause disinhibition, impaired concentration, impaired co-ordination, divided tracking and delayed reaction time;  
(e)	whether 3 nanograms per millilitre of THC is explained by your usage on the day of the accident, or represents your baseline where you are a regular user, it is unclear whether the level of 3 nanograms per millilitre impairs a person's ability to drive and, if so, to what extent.   
18	You were interviewed by police members on 5 January 2022. You could not remember the collision or the events before the collision and this remains the case to today. You spoke about your cannabis and alcohol usage. The former was used regularly since you were 15 or 16 and using half a gram a day before you went to sleep.  
19	The circumstances of your driving form part of the circumstances underpinning the charge of dangerous driving causing death. Both you and the prosecution put it down to your inattention, which was neither momentary nor protracted but of short duration. Although I may have expressed reservations about the issue of dangerousness, I must accept the common position and sentence on that basis.  
20	There are two other matters. I could not find beyond reasonable doubt the level of alcohol in your blood actually contributed to the occurrence of the accident. The evidence of Dr Sangaila is insufficiently precise to make that finding. The same must be said of the level of the active ingredient of cannabis in your blood. 
21	Not contributing to the accident in the required causal sense was the fact your licence to drive was suspended and you knew of the suspension. You should not have driven on that occasion. I will return to that matter when discussing your moral culpability. 
Impact statements 
Taylah Modrich 
22	Taylah Modrich was the partner of Ms Noonan-Long. She made her impact statement on 8 December 2023. As a result, she receives psychological counselling for a post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety and depression. The symptoms render her daily life very difficult. Her grief at the loss of Ms Noonan-Long is overwhelming. It has deprived her of a companion and their hope of having a family together. Owing to the dreadful injuries inflicted on Ms Noonan-Long, there could not be an open viewing at the funeral. This has deprived Ms Modrich of a sense of closure. 
23	One consequence of her emotional pain is the increase in her weight. As Ms Modrich puts it, 'the weight gain is not merely a physical issue it is an image of the emotional scars that I am working tirelessly to navigate'. To assist in her recovery, Ms Modrich acquired a puppy, which she named after Ms Noonan-Long.
24	With respect to the physical impact of the crime, as I just said, Ms Modrich has experienced significant changes to her body mainly through unintended weight gain. The pain, grief and stress has taken a toll on her physical well-being and contributes to changes in her lifestyle and habits. She once had a routine of exercise and proper nutrition but it is now a challenge for her to prioritise due to her overwhelming grief. 
25	The financial impact has been significant. She resigned her job. She struggled to maintain employment after the accident due to struggling to focus and work in a professional setting. It was a difficult decision to resign from her job, which she very much enjoyed. Presently, she struggles financially but has obtained employment as a swimming teacher which gives her some purpose and fulfillment. 
26	Finally, the social impact of the accident has affected her. It introduced a deep-seated fear and paranoia about the potential loss of loved ones. Her partner's death has left a huge mark on her sense of safety and wellbeing, particularly when travelling in a vehicle. She has lost confidence in vehicle safety. Further, she struggles to go anywhere alone and no longer feels secure in her own company. This has caused a loss of control over her independence.  
Adam Scott-Loy
27	Adam Scott Long was the father of Ms Noonan-Long. Since losing his daughter, he has suffered from bad anxiety, panic attacks and depression. He struggles to go outside due to these conditions, and often does not wish to engage with other people. He engaged with a counsellor for a period of 12 months but felt it did not assist with his grief. He had to cease working and did so for about three months, using money from his savings to pay bills.
Lynette Noonan 
28	Lynette Noonan is Ms Noonan-Long’s grandmother. She made an impact statement on 8 December 2023. She was very close to Ms Noonan-Long and her sister, Natalie, because their mother died in 2018. They were friends and confidantes. The effect on her has been great. She has been undertaking grief counselling. She takes anti‑depressant medicine. She believes her nerves are shattered as her hands tremble constantly. 
Ron Noonan
29	Ron Noonan was the uncle of Ms Noonan-Long. He struggled with the death of his niece. She is the third close family member he has lost. Tragically, he also lost his father as a result of a car accident. He has moved out of his family home, which he once shared with his wife and five children, and now lives alone. Every day, he is on the verge of tears and is emotionally broken. He hopes one day to be able to engage with professional grief counselling.
30	It is abundantly clear Ms Noonan-Long was very much loved and her death has had an immense effect on her immediate family and others.   
Criminal history  
31	You have never appeared in a court on a criminal charge. However, you received a traffic infringement notice for speeding where your licence was suspended for six months from 8 September 2021. You were subject to the suspension at the time of driving. 
Personal 
32	You are now 24 and were 22 at the time of the accident. You are the eldest of three children with a sister and brother. You have a four-year-old son, Levi. He is a close friend of your sister's son. 
33	You and your family moved to Melbourne in 2013 to be closer to your father's parents. Before the move, owing to your father's drinking and misbehaviour, relations between your parents were strained. So much so, child protection was involved at some stage. You have a strong relationship with your mother, brother and sister. You were living with your brother at the time of the accident. 
34	You and the father of your son, Zak, ended your relationship when your son was eight months old. The circumstances were such that an interim family violence intervention order was made to protect you and your son. Although the order has lapsed, you have no contact with Zak and he has contact with your son two nights a fortnight.         
35	Your son is delayed in speech, cognition and toileting. In January 2023, he received a NDIS assistance package to assist in those and other areas. Owing to the accident, you were separated from your son so much he refers to you as 'Aunty Jess'. 
36	Your formal education ended with you completing Year 11 in VCAL. After school, you worked in various jobs, mainly in retail. Presently, you receive parenting payments but would like, when physically able, to work again in aged care. 
37	You started smoking cannabis when 16 or 17 and still do so after the accident to relieve your distress and physical pain. Your usage constitutes a recognised psychological disorder, a Cannabis Use Disorder. You wish to stop using the drug but, I daresay, it will take both determination and assistance to do so. 
38	You started drinking alcohol at 16. Initially, your consumption was at a low level but increased during the break down of your relationship with Zak. It involved binge drinking. After the accident, you reduced the level to four glasses of wine a fortnight when Levi is with Zak. 
39	The breakdown of the relationship had another consequence. You became depressed and sought psychological counselling. You were prescribed an anti‑depressant medicine. 
40	You were seriously injured in the accident and taken to a hospital. You remained there as an inpatient until 14 October and then transferred to the acquired brain injury unit of another hospital. Apart from the cognitive effects, you suffered extensive fractures to the three sections of your spine, cervical, thoracic and lumbar. Apart from the spine, most prominently, there were fractures of the left scapula and clavicle, a collapsed left lung, a brain injury and significantly a miscarriage. Not unexpectedly, treatment has been extensive. It has included large scale fusions of the cervical, thoracic and lumbar spines. The extent of your injuries and some of the immediate treatment after the accident are set out in considerable detail by Professor Oliver from Epworth Rehabilitation.  
41	The letters of Gavin Weekes, a pain specialist, to a practitioner at Epworth Rehabilitation identifies the areas of your pain. The last letter, dated 18 August 2023, suggests the right nerve root block was unsuccessful as pain relief. He wanted a neurosurgeon to look at the MRI scans, which showed a discal protrusion impacting the right L 5 nerve root. 
42	Hazem Akil is a neurosurgeon. At the request of Dr Weekes, he saw you on 30 October 2023. He reviewed the imaging both before and after your surgeries. Those surgeries protected the integrity of your spine and, as he put it, prevent any catastrophic progression into a major neurological deficit. I imagine major neurological deficit means some form of paralysis. 
43	According to Dr Akil, you are left with severe pain in your spine, including the neck. The pain limits your functioning of sitting, standing, bending, pushing, pulling and lifting. 
44	From the perspective of pain management, Dr Akil's prognosis was guarded at best and likely to be poor. He considers your pain will continue for the foreseeable future, which is another way of saying permanent unless there is some unforeseen medical development which will help you. There is the need for long term treatment involving various specialities.  
45	Oddly, Dr Akil did not comment on the right L 5 nerve root even though you told him of numbness in both legs, especially at night. 
46	Rachel Teo is a consultant physician in rehabilitative medicine. She referred you to Dr Weekes. In her recent report she is unprepared to give a prognosis until the results of recent treatment are known.  
47	The accident has left you suffering from another recognised psychological disorder, a Major Depressive Disorder with anxious distress. It is of moderate severity. You have thought of suicide for you have a sense of futility in your life. 
48	Since the accident, you changed from living with your brother to living on your own with Levi. You receive support from health professionals and your family. 
49	Due to the physical and psychological effects of your injuries, you have not returned to paid employment.   
Discussion 
Purposes
50	Section 5(1) of the Sentencing Act 1991 ('the Sentencing Act') sets out the purposes for which sentences may be imposed: 
(a)	to punish the offender to the extent and in a manner which is just in all of the circumstances; 
(b)	to deter the offender or other persons from committing offences of the same or a similar character; 
(c)	to establish conditions within which it is considered that the offender's rehabilitation may be facilitated; 
(d)	to manifest the denunciation of the type of conduct the offender engaged in; and, 
(e)	to protect the community from the offender. 
51	To a greater or lesser extent, each of those sentencing purposes is relevant to your sentencing. 
52	As happens in many cases in this Court, the question of sentencing is complicated by the offence of dangerous driving causing death being a category 2 offence under the Sentencing Act. The effect of the classification is I must sentence you to imprisonment unless you can establish an exception. You rely on one or other or both of two exceptions:   
(a)	the exception created by s 5(2H)(c)(ii) – owing to your impaired mental functioning, you would be subject to substantially and materially greater than the ordinary burden or risks of imprisonment; and 
(b)	the exception created by s 5(2H)(e) – there are substantial and compelling circumstances which are rare and exceptional that would justify not imposing a sentence of imprisonment. 
53	As to the former exception, you rely on the cognitive impairments due to your brain injury suffered in the accident. They involve the weakening in your ability to process information, memory, learning new things and, broadly, executive functioning. You have recovered as far as you can cognitively, but your cognitive functioning is significantly reduced from its level before the accident. 
54	The second aspect of your impaired mental functioning is the emergence of the Major Depressive Disorder with associated anxious distress. It is of moderate severity. This disorder stems from several factors including your intense grief at the death of your friend; and the possibility, through imprisonment, of being separated from Levi. The psychologist, Mathew Barth, predicts a significant risk of further deterioration in your depressed mood with your vulnerability to more intense bouts of depression and anxiety.   
55	In terms of s5(2H)(c)(ii), you are already significantly depressed and anxious. You think of suicide. The death of your friend contributes to those thoughts as well as a sense of futility in your life. The risk of deepening your depression and anxiety runs the increased risk of self-harm. In my experience, the understanding of the risk of suicide is not always present with professionals. It is largely dependent on what the patient says and the manner in which it is said. A denial of suicidal thoughts or plans may mask the sense of calm which a person has who has made up his or her mind to commit suicide. The fact you are thinking of suicide while the possibility of imprisonment exists could be expected to intensify if you are imprisoned and separated from your son, even though your opportunities for suicide should be far more limited in prison but remain after your release. Even apart from imprisonment, your physical and psychological states are such that the possibility of suicide remains. I am satisfied that exception applies. 
56	As to s 5(2H)(e), the test is extraordinarily narrow when read in conjunction with the following two sub‑sections, (2H)(c) and (2I). Some of the factors you rely upon are excluded by those sub-sections. 
57	When a person faces charges where death of another arises from culpable driving or driving in a manner dangerous, it is not unusual to find the accused person being injured in the accident. What is unusual is the extent to which you have been injured. There was widespread damage to your spine leading to several multi‑level fusions. If the issue of a fusion arises, there is usually only a single fusion involving two vertebrae. You have had several fusions, some involving more than two vertebrae. Not unexpectedly, the accident has left you significantly disabled and facing a lifetime of extensive areas of spinal pain. 
58	The evidence about how the accident occurred is limited. You cannot remember. The CCTV footage together with the pictures of the scene and the other pieces of evidence reveal little except the assertion, agreed to by you, that it was due to inattention, more than momentary but of short duration. For many years as a magistrate, I dealt with many charges of driving in a dangerous manner or at a speed dangerous. Many of those charges involved driving which was considerably worse than your driving. In terms of the dangerousness of your driving, accepting the common position that exists between you and the prosecution, I consider it is at the lower end contemplated by this charge. 
59	I have already spoken of the possibility of suicide. This and the other factors taken together into the area defined by paragraph (e). It too applies. 
60	For completeness, there was debate about whether Corrections Victoria could offer you the treatment you require if imprisoned. The material does not enable me to find it could not. The letter of Jackie Ashmore and the content of the email sent on 20 March 2024 outline the extensive services potentially available to persons in custody.   
Maximum penalties 
61	The maximum penalties are: 
(a)	dangerous driving causing death – 10 years' imprisonment. 
(b)	driving while exceeding the prescribed concentration of a drug – 12 penalty units, which is just shy of $2,400. There is also a requirement to deal with your driver licence. 
Nature and gravity of the offence
62	Why you lost control of your utility for it to strike the electricity pole is in one sense inexplicable. You were not speeding. It cannot be found beyond reasonable doubt you were adversely affected by alcohol or cannabis. The conditions were largely favourable for safe driving. Where the accident happened the road was relatively straight, sealed and dry. There was little or no traffic. When you lost control your speed was well below the speed limit. However, it was dark and there was no street lighting. 
63	Given the appropriate circumstances the concept of dangerous driving can encompass even momentary inattention. The standard direction to juries on the concept includes these words: 
‘…remember that people do not always drive as they should. Even the best drivers occasionally lose attention for a moment, or make minor mistakes. For this element to be satisfied, the accused must have driven at a speed or in a manner that significantly increased the risk of serious injury or death.’ 
64	As I have said already, as a magistrate, I presided over many cases of dangerous driving. In many of those cases, the degree of dangerousness was incontestable. Often the driving was protracted and accompanied by many infringements of the traffic laws to the dangers of others. 
65	Your counsel concedes you were inattentive, being beyond the momentary but not prolonged. On the spectrum of dangerous driving, this case is at the lower end in terms of its gravity. 
66	At the time, your probationary licence was suspended and you knew that was so. Apart from the presumptive effect of your knowledge, you should not have driven. Nor should you have driven having consumed alcohol at least 45 minutes earlier or with the presence of cannabis in your system. Only the last is the subject of a charge but you were highly irresponsible in driving at all and your moral culpability is significant.  
Prospects of rehabilitation
67	I accept you are profoundly remorseful for what happened. One does not need to rely upon your guilty pleas as evidence of that. Without the opinion of Dr Barth, given the physical and psychological effect upon you, I would have considered your prospects of rehabilitation are excellent. However, Dr Barth is more restrained. He sees the urgent need to address your use of cannabis and what he calls 'psychological treatment and containment'. As a result, I consider your prospects are good for you will receive the required treatment and assistance under the order I propose, irrespective of the other assistance you can receive. I do not consider the sentencing purposes of specific deterrence and protection of the community from you have an important part to play in sentencing you. 
Verdins   
68	You rely on limbs or principles 2 to 6 stated in the case of R v Verdins. To an extent, I have implicitly dealt with some of the principles in my earlier remarks. I consider each applies in your case. Collectively, they operate to moderate the sentence I would have imposed in their absence. 
Delay 
69	The effect of the delay between the commission of the offence and now has been reflected in the other matters which I have considered. 
Youth
70	You were young at the time of the offending and still are. The law’s emphasis on the rehabilitation of young offenders has some application with you. 
Other punishment  
71	Your counsel points to your injuries as a form of punishment and so they are. I have dealt with their effects upon you elsewhere in these remarks. 
Family hardship 
72	Your counsel submitted the separation of Levi from you if you are imprisoned would significantly adversely affect him. Louise Huynh is a pregnancy and early parenting practitioner with the Caroline Chisholm Society. She has worked with you since 15 March 2022. She and her colleagues have played an important part in improving Levi's life. They have assisted you in parenting him. They have helped with dealing with his developmental difficulties including the obtaining of funding from the NDIS to pay for services. Ms Huynh says: 
‘Jessica has been a concerned and proactive mother over Levi's development and health. Levi still relies on Jessica for support and is highly dependent on her. It would be essential for Levi's development to remain in the care of his primary care giver and mother, Jessica. I believe it would significantly impact Levi's development if he was apart from Jessica for a long period of time.’     
73	Although exceptional circumstances are required to consider the hardship to Levi if you were imprisoned, I consider they exist in your case. 
74	I have already considered the potential harm to you through the enforced separation from your son.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      
Guilty pleas  
75	You indicated an intention to plead guilty to this charge shortly after the end of the committal hearing in the Magistrates' Court. The committal hearing was limited to the forensic physician. Presumably, it had demonstrated the weakness in the charge of culpable driving causing death. Despite the charge of dangerous driving causing death was a charge you faced when entering the committal hearing, nevertheless, I consider your intention to plead guilty was made known at the earliest reasonable opportunity. 
76	By pleading guilty, you have taken responsibility for your offending. Your pleas have the practical effect of assisting the criminal justice system. It creates room for those proceedings which genuinely require a jury trial. It relieves witnesses of the burden of giving evidence in this Court.      
77	Even though the problems created by the virus to the criminal justice system have greatly lessened, they have not disappeared. The sense of crisis expressed by the Court in Worboyes v R has almost disappeared. On 5 May 2023, the World Health Authority declared the virus was no longer a public health emergency. Later, in 2023, the Chief Judge of this Court announced the backlog of cases created by the pandemic had been overcome. Nevertheless, criminal jury trials are still made difficult by the effects of the virus, affecting witnesses, jurors and other participants. Accordingly, even now, a guilty plea deserves a greater discount on sentence than would be the case in normal times. 
78	Overall, your guilty pleas deserve a significant discount on the sentence which would have been imposed in its absence. 
79	As counsel for the Director submitted, the fact there is an exception established under s5(2H) of the Sentencing Act does not necessarily mean imprisonment is not warranted and she is undoubtedly correct in that submission. 
80	However, in your case imprisonment is not required. The predecessor to the community correction order was seen as an alternative to imprisonment. Owing to the lower entry point to engage a community correction order, that order is not necessarily an alternative. However, in your case it clearly is. 
81	Yesterday, you were assessed by a community corrections officer. She found you suitable for the order. You were also assessed by a registered nurse from a service provided by Forensicare. 
Current sentencing practices
82	In relation to current sentencing practices, counsel for the Director referred to several cases in her written submissions, which also attached an annexure A, which also contained details of such cases and I have had consideration to them. 
Sentence
83	Subject to your consent, I propose to convict you of the charge of dangerous driving causing death and place you on a two and a half year community correction order with these conditions: 
(a)	undertake any assessment or treatment for drug abuse or dependency;  
(b)	undertake any assessment or treatment for alcohol abuse or dependency; 
(c)	undertake any mental health assessment and treatment; 
(d)	undertake any programme to address factors related to your offending behaviour; 
(e)	to be supervised, monitored and managed as directed by the Secretary.  
84	On the charge of dangerous driving causing death, any licence or permit you hold to drive a motor vehicle is cancelled and you are disqualified from obtaining a licence or permit for two years. 
85	On the summary charge, I will fine you $400 and make the same order for cancellation and disqualification except the period is for six months. The two periods of disqualification run concurrently.
86	I will refer the fine to Fines Victoria for collection.       
S 6AAA
87	Section 6AAA is a requirement of the legislation to announce the effect of the plea of guilty in relation to the sentencing.  If Ms Glennie had not pleaded guilty to these charges, but had been found guilty after a trial:
(a)	In respect of Charge 1, I would have sentenced her to six months' imprisonment and made the same community correction order that I made with the same conditions.
(b)	In relation to Charge 2, I would have imposed a fine of $600 with conviction.
88	In relation to the disqualification periods:
(a)	In relation to Charge 1, the period of disqualification would have been two and a half years; and 
(b)	In relation to Charge 2, the period would have been nine months.
‑ ‑ ‑