SENTENCING OF MOHINDER SINGH, THE FREEWAY TRUCK DRIVER WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DEATH OF FOUR POLICE OFFICERS DUE TO HIS NEGLIGENT DRIVING WHILE UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF DRUGS

R v Singh [2021] VSC 182 (14 April 2021)

This is a sentencing proceeding where the accused pleads guilty for his culpable driving which caused the death of four police officers and other offenses as stated below.

Facts:

Mohinder Singh pleaded guilty before for causing the death of Lynette Taylor, Glen Humphris, Kevin King, and Joshua Prestney by the culpable driving of a motor vehicle negligently and whilst under the influence of a drug of dependence to such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control of the motor vehicle. To trafficking cannabis, methylamphetamine, Butanediol, and to the possession of Diazepam.

It was submitted, on his behalf, that there were unusual subjective elements in the case which was that: “the defendant was mentally unwell and actively psychotic at the time of the offending.  His conditions had a relevant and substantial causal link to the offenses. His offending conduct was committed reluctantly and only occurred under the position and influence of his employer.  He was vulnerable to influence because of his state and because of his employment relationship”

The prosecution submitted that the causal connection was not made out because the psychosis is linked directly to the ingestion of methylamphetamine.  The prosecution does not accept that the analysis of Associate Professor Carroll's finding supports the contention that the disorders played a significant role in the decision-making process.

The maximum penalties for the offenses to which you have pleaded guilty are: (i) Culpable driving, 12 years; (ii) Trafficking in a drug of dependence, 15 years; (iii) Possession of a drug of dependence, one year; (iv) Dealing with property suspected of being proceeds of crime, two years; 

Issue: Should the court consider the “unusual subjective elements” in this case as alleged by the accused in determining his sentence?

Held:

The importance of the matter is that, if accepted, they would reduce the moral culpability and the need for general deterrence. However, the court does not accept that the causal connection contended has been made out. In relation to it that, even if it had been made out, the court does not believe that it would have had a substantial effect on any sentence to be imposed, in particular, because of the nature of the offense of culpable driving includes the particulars of negligence, being fatigued, and being under the influence of drugs.

The oral submission of the counsel of the accused that because of his condition, these features in a sentence would be sensibly moderated is not accepted by the court.

Hence, the court sentences the accused accordingly: (1) On Charges 1-4 for the culpable driving causing the death of the four police officers, he is sentenced to be imprisoned for  12 years. Three years of the sentences on Charge 2, 3, 4, be served cumulatively upon each and other and upon the sentence on Charge 1; (2) On Charge 5 for trafficking in cannabis he is sentenced to be imprisoned for six months; (3) On Charge 6 for trafficking in methylamphetamine, he is sentenced to be imprisoned for 12 months; (4) On Charge 7 for trafficking  1,4-butanediol, he is sentenced to be imprisoned for 14 days. Three months of the sentence imposed on Charge 5 and nine months of the sentence imposed on Charge 6 be served cumulatively upon each other and the other sentences imposed this day.

Conclusion: A total effective sentence of 22 years and a fixed period of 18 years and six months before he will be eligible before parole.

#SentencingLaw