A 51-year-old experienced NTRS driver involved in an accident November last year has appeared in Darwin local court to plead guilty on two traffic charges including driving without due care.
The defendant's lawyer said his client's guilty plea was "reflective of his remorse and disappointment for being before the court today, consistent with his positive good character which your honour has no doubt seen in the reference material.
"He's 51-years-old. He's born and raised in Darwin. He's supported in court by his wife of 22 years. She's a well-respected educator.
"He's also supported in court by Rodney Hawking. He's the man in the high-vis.
"He's the operations supervisor from NTRS. He's here, essentially, as a representative of the company.
"Your honour will see from the reference material [the defendant] has an excellent work history. Throughout his career he's obtained various special skills-sets as a driver, and has obtained heavy vehicle licenses.
"He's clearly a highly skilled heavy vehicle driver, which makes his current predicament all the more disappointing to him.
"He's also been with NTRS for over ten years.
"Your honour has a reference from Mr Fortescue, the general manager of that company; speaks also to his skill as a driver of all manner of heavy vehicles.
"In Mr Fortescue's words, he's an employee of exemplary service and dedication, and that impeccable driving record carries through your honour in my submission, not only in his professional capacity, but also as private citizen and a private motorist.
"He's a person with a completely unblemished driving history.
"I suppose that then, really begs the question, well, how does an incident like that come to pass.
"Your honour, as the facts indicate, and as the charge indicates, [the defendant] has proceeded through the intersection after the light had turned orange.
"I'm instructed, and I understand it's accepted, that [inaudible said too quickly] accelerated through upon the light turning orange, but rather that the vehicle..
Judge Fong-Lim: "Failed to stop."
Defence lawyer: "Failed to stop. The vehicle was already in motion, but it's not the case that he's then sped up, effectively, to go through the vehicle, and that's what's created the excessive speed, but rather, once he's gotten into the intersection; what he's required to do was wipe-off some speed, so he could then safely negotiate the turn.
"Your honour would appreciate these are split-section decisions that are made, especially for the driver of a heavy vehicle, who, in some instances, given the position and consideration of whether they'll be able to stop safely, are required to make those decisions in a very short period amount of time.
"So he's allowed the truck to continue into the intersection. What was then appropriate, was for him to wipe-off some of that speed.
"It wasn't excessive speed for the corner, apart from the fact that he needed to then pause as he's negotiated the bend.
"So it's excessive speed at that moment, and failure to apply braking pressure, coupled with the transfer of weight of the load that he was carrying, that's then caused the [inaudible] onto it's side.
"And that's really the actions that constitute the carelessness [inaudible] of the defence.
"Your honour, it's absolutely tragic and unfortunate that the victim's vehicle was in the wrong place at the wrong time.
"There's no suggestion that she's contributed to what's occurred.
"She's said she's lost her vehicle. Yes, we accept that."
Judge: "She's obviously had a physical injury."
Defence lawyer: "She's had a physical injury. We accept that."
Judge: "And I have no doubt anyone involved in such a significant accident is going to have emotional and psychological injuries."
Defence lawyer: "We of course accept it's significant, and of course it's obvious to say, it's fortunate that it wasn't worse. It could have been so much worse.
"We're not sure if your honour has the photos there to see the damage to the vehicle, but really, what's happened, is that the truck has fallen onto the front right of her bonnet."
The prosecution prepared their photos to hand up to the judge.
Defence lawyer: "There's no objection from us. It is useful for your honour to see.
"So your honour will see, such as the impact, that she was able to exit the vehicle through the passenger-side door. So she was able to get out of the vehicle herself.
"[The defendent] was also able to extract himself from his vehicle, which tipped over onto the side.
"He was also injured, your honour. He suffered quite a [inaudible] laceration to his forehead area, and was later treated for whiplash, but such was his concern at the time of the incident, and it's [inaudible] the bodyworn footage, that when the paramedics arrived, that he was insistent that [the victim] be seen as a priority.
"He was entirely cooperative with police at the scene. Drug and alcohol testing as you'd expect. Both were absolutely clear.
"The victim impact statement makes reference to a lack of care shown by NTRS. I can't speak to that your honour."
Judge: "That's how she feels."
Defence laywer: "That's how she feels. That's right."
In further submissions to the court, the defence lawyer characterised the offending as being of the lower end.
Defence lawyer: "He is a person of exemplary character as referenced in the reference material."
A no-conviction outcome was also requested, discussing the "stigma" it would have on his client.
Judge: "What is your client's ability to pay reparations to the victim?"
Defence lawyer: "It may be difficult for your honour in terms of arrangements with insurers and so on and so fourth. We haven't been provided with any documentation other than what's there in the victim's impact statement."
Judge: "You see the difficulty with no recognition of the victim in this process, and you're asking me not to convict him; you're asking me not to disqualify him. [further inaudible]
The judge went on to say: "the victim would feel terribly aggrieved with such a sentence", and that she would "not blame her, quite frankly".
"So reparation is something we have to consider. We don't have the insurance details, we don't know what she's going to receive from the [inaudible] compensation scheme, it doesn't matter.
"If there is some sort of reparation than can be made, it would go a long way towards recognising the victim and the affect his accident has had on her, and it would have been terrifying.
"She was very lucky, and he was very lucky that the truck didn't squash her vehicle any further into that small car, because she could have been killed, and that is the truth of the matter."
The defendant's lawyer discussed with his client his financial situation after the judge requested his ability to pay reparations.
Defence lawyer: "Your honour, I'm instructed his income is actually on the more modest end of the spectrum. He's instructed me he's earning about $1,000 a week after tax.
"As I've mentioned he has three kids in school.
Judge: "His partner works."
Defence lawyer: "Yes."
The defence lawyer brought up low savings, but said his client wasn't living week-to-week, but that they weren't "flush".
The prosecution's Mr Fraser provided his submissions: "This was an act of reckless driving, and that's what it's classified as.
"And the consequences could have been far worse.
"I draw your attention to photo two and 10. I submit that this was a life-threatening incident.
"There is a responsibility to drive safely in such a large commercial vehicle.
"This has had a significant affect on the victim. Conversely, she does want a sentence that reflects the seriousness. The fact that she could have been killed.
"She also said that she doesn't want a sentence that would ruin the defendant's life.
"From our view, we do think a CCO (community corrections order) is in range, but we do seek a conviction, for [inaudible] and general deterrence.
The judge reviewed the documents and prepared the sentence: "[Defendent] stand up please. This is particularly bad example of a split-second decision being made by a driver, and the consequences are serious, and could have been more serious as you know.
"You have come before this court as person of prior good character.
"You've bene driving for a long time. You are a commercial driver. There is no indication that you are not usually a responsible and good driver. Infact, all your references support that.
"I have no doubt that you are very sorry for what has happened, and I have no doubt that you're concerned for victim, at the time of the accident.
"What your lawyer is asking us to do on your behalf is not enter a conviction and not to disqualify you. These are things that are considered by the court.
"In your case, I am not going to disqualify you. It is not an example of [inaudible] but it is an example of commercial drivers having to be [inaudible] alert [inaudible].
"No doubt, she was terrified. No doubt, she still suffers some trauma; psychological, emotional.
"Anyone who's been in a car accident relives it in their head.
"In relation to a conviction. I accept this is an early plea. I also accept that you are a person of prior good character.
"It is my view that a conviction is warranted because I have to consider a lot of drivers of heavy vehicles and other drivers on the road.
"It's my view if I don't convict you today, it's sending the wrong message to commercial drivers, that though you might have a pure unblemished [inaudible].
"I'm also going to add another condition to that. And that is to write a letter of apology to [the victim].
"I think it's very important she gets recognised and acknowledged.
"You are to write a letter of apology to her within 14 days.
"I'm also going to make an order for reparation compensation and that's pursuant to section 88a of the [inaudible] act.
"I don't have information as to insurers. I don't have information as to what compensation she is going to receive through the motor vehicle compensation act.
"We all know that if she is covered under that compensation act that her compensation is limited.
In taking the financial considerations of the defendant as a father into account, and in "recognition of the affect this has had on the victim" the judge ordered the defendant pay his victim $1000 in compensation through the fines recovery unit.
She finished: "There will be two victims levy of $150."
We are The Mango Inquirer.
[NOTE: With so many inaudible sections this could never be a word-for-word script on what was said during the hearing, but neither are news stories more generally. It is most of it though. What was said. When almost all of a sentence is inaudible, it's left out. Sometimes defence submissions double-up. I have noticed when a lawyer is saying something they're either unsure about or maybe don't believe in, their voice drops right at the good part or trails off and it's difficult to hear what they actually said.]
