R. v. Weckenmann Date:, 2017 BCPC 117

Citation: R. v. Weckenmann Date: 20170323 2017 BCPC 117 File No: 38772-1 Registry: Duncan IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA REGINA v. EDELGARD WECKENMANN REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE J. P. MACCARTHY Counsel for the Crown: J. Patsch Counsel for the Defendant: D. Murphy Place of Hearing: Duncan , B.C. Date of Hearing: March 23, 2017 Date of Judgment: March 23, 2017

INTRODUCTION [1] THE COURT: Edelgard Weckenmann has entered a plea of guilty with respect to a charge of driving without due care andattention contrary to s. 144(1)(

a) of the Motor Vehicle Act, R.S.B.C., c. 316. [2] The charges to which she has entered a plea of guilty arise out of a collision that occurred on June 30th, 2015, on VancouverIsland. [3] The collision involved her vehicle, being a Subaru station wagon, with a motorcycle (the "Motorcycle") being ridden by thevictim in this matter, Colin Campbell, and his wife, Patricia Campbell. This matter has been dealt with by way of an early guilty pleawith respect to this charge.

No trial has been required. [4] The responsibility and duty of this court now is to determine what is a fit and proper sentence with respect to the offence towhich Ms. Weckenmann has entered a plea of guilty. THE APPLICABLE LEGISLATION [5] In the decision of the Honourable Justice J.W. Jardine in the case of R. v. Chand, [2009] B.C.J. No. 1531, 2009 BCPC 242, at paragraphs 2 through 4, inclusive, notes that the charging provisions for which Crown has exercised its discretion withrespect to Ms. Weckenmann are found under the provisions of s. 144(1)(

a) of the Motor Vehicle Act. That is the provision dealing withdriving without due care and attention. The sentencing provisions with respect to that particular offence are set out in s. 144(2). Thatparticular provision provides as follows: A person who contravenes subsection (1)(

a) or (

b) is liable on conviction to a fine of not less than $100 and, subject to this minimumfine,

section 4 of the Offence Act applies. [6] Under the provisions of s. 4 of the Offence Act, the following penalty provisions are established: Unless otherwise specifically provided in an enactment, a person who is convicted of an offence is liable to a fine of not more than$2000 or to imprisonment for not more than 6 months, or to both. [7] In R. v. Chand, the Honourable Judge Jardine noted that the legislative provisions which apply to this case and which form anysentencing relate to an offence which is one of negligence.

I note that driving without due care and attention is an offence under theMotor Vehicle Act and it is not a crime governed by the provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada. The purpose of the Motor VehicleAct is the regulation and control of traffic. Therefore, the Motor Vehicle Act provides for sanctions for improper or careless drivingwhich is short of the Criminal Code offence of dangerous driving. [8] The offence of driving without due care and attention is a strict liability offence.

As noted in the Chand decision at paragraph4, that strict liability offence is one where the act setting forth the responsibility of the driver for the offence and providing for personalliability is the act of driving improperly.

The improper driving: ... may be manifested by driving which, having regard to all of the circumstances, departs from the standard expected of a reasonabledriver in the same circumstances. [9] Accordingly, the lack of due care and attention and the absence of attention or thought may be inferred from the circumstancesof the driving. [10] Having heard all of the circumstances in this matter, I am of the view that the Crown has exercised their discretion and laid thecorrect charge against Ms.

Weckenmann and that a charge under the provisions of the Criminal Code would not have been appropriate inthese circumstances. THE NATURE, GOALS AND PRINCIPLES OF SENTENCING [11] In matters involving the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act, the case authorities are clear that deterrence and denunciation areimportant factors. [12] The fundamental objectives of sentencing, generally, are accepted to be to denounce unlawful conduct and to deter the offenderand others from committing offences and to assist in the rehabilitation of the offender.

The other relevant factor in dealing withsentencing under the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act and other regulatory offences is to balance between two very importantaspects. One is the degree of the responsibility of the offender and the second is the seriousness of the offence. FACTS/CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING THE OFFENCE [13] Crown has provided a detailed recital of the circumstances upon which it relies.

In that regard, reference has been made to aforensic collision reconstruction investigation report which was prepared by Sergeant Barry Noonan who is a Collision Reconstructionistwith the RCMP and is attached to the Vancouver Island Collision Analysis Reconstruction Services. His report was completed onJanuary 25th, 2015. As I understand it that was the date the completed report was sent to the investigating detachment.

I will refer tothe forensic collision reconstruction investigation report as the "Report". [14] Based on Crown's submissions and based on the information contained within the Report, the collision in this matter occurredat the intersection of the Trans-Canada Highway, also known as Highway No. 1, and Oyster Sto-lo Road. That is an intersection locatednorth of the Town of Ladysmith and south of the Cassidy Airport or Nanaimo Airport. I will hereinafter refer to that intersection as the"Intersection".

According to the Report, Highway No. 1 runs, generally, in a north-south direction and is intersected from the east and

west by Oyster Sto-lo Road. [ 15 ] The Report indicates that Highway No. 1 is a four-lane highway. It is divided with a raised concrete median and there is attached to each of the north and southbound lanes a dedicated left-turn lane (or what is referred to as left-turn bays) to permit both north and southbound traffic to complete a left turn off of Highway No. 1.

The Report also indicates that there are what may be referred to as deceleration lanes attached to each of the north and southbound lanes. [ 16 ] The Intersection is controlled by traffic lights and the left-turn bays are governed by dedicated traffic signal lights. To the east of the Trans-Canada Highway is a commercial complex which includes a gas service station and there is also a fast-food restaurant. [ 17 ] The information contained both in the Report and based on the submissions made by Crown counsel concludes that Ms. Weckenmann (the “Defendant”) was in the process of travelling southbound.

She had a passenger in her vehicle. The apparent intention was to make a left-hand turn at the Intersection in order to head eastward into the commercial complex. The circumstances both observed by witnesses and also based upon physical evidence observed by Sergeant Noonan indicate that a collision occurred in the fast lane of the southbound portion of the Trans-Canada Highway.

The evidence also confirms that the Defendant’s vehicle had been travelling in the slower right-hand lane, had then made a move left over to the fast lane, and stopped in the fast lane rather than completing a move entirely over to what is referred to as the left-turn bay of the southbound portion of the Trans-Canada Highway. [ 18 ] As a result of coming to a complete stop in that fast lane of the southbound

section of the highway, the Motorcycle driven by Colin Campbell collided with the back of the Defendant’s vehicle. The result was that Colin Campbell, the driver of the Motorcycle, was thrown off of his Motorcycle and, as I understand it, ended up under the Motorcycle. His passenger spouse, Patricia Campbell, was thrown from the Motorcycle. Both of them sustained very serious injuries. [ 19 ] This resulted in Mr. Colin Campbell being transported by air ambulance. As it turns out, he succumbed to those injuries and died a couple of days later following the collision. Ms.

Patricia Campbell also suffered very serious injuries and, apparently, was air- lifted to Victoria. Most fortunately, she survived those injuries, but continues to suffer from residual injuries arising out of the collision. [ 20 ] The Report does note that the roadway in this area has a posted 90-kilometre speed regulation. There is also an advanced warning system of flashing amber lights referred to in the Report as a “W-116 Prepare-to-Stop Warning Light System”. The two warning light systems are located, according to the Report, approximately 130 to 140 metres south and north of the Intersection.

The Report does indicate that the warning light systems and signs are primarily used to warn drivers approaching the Intersection of an impending change from a green light to a yellow light. The Report confirms that they are placed in advance of the Intersection to allow motorists travelling at the posted speed sufficient time to come to a safe and controlled stop.

The Report also confirms, and there is no issue about it, that the left-hand turn lanes each have a dedicated traffic light signal separate and apart from the signals controlling the through traffic in both the northbound and southbound lanes. [ 21 ] The evidence observed by Sergeant Noonan which gave rise to his Report concluded that based on the location of the Motorcycle, based on the location of what I will refer to as the accident debris, and as well other physical evidence on the ground, the collision did occur not in the left-hand turn bay, but in the through fast lane of the southbound portion of the Trans-Canada Highway. [ 22 ] Immediately following the collision, the Defendant moved her vehicle in such a fashion as to complete the left-hand turn and then stopped on the Oyster Sto-lo Road and waited, as I understand it, for the arrival of the police authorities.

Something in the neighbourhood of six police officers attended at the scene and within two or three hours after the collision, Sergeant Noonan arrived on the scene to complete his investigation and to take measurements for the Report. [ 23 ] The charges that have given rise to the matter before me were somewhat delayed in being sworn and then served on the Defendant. I say that without criticism. As has been pointed out in the submissions, the police were primarily dealing with the injuries sustained by both Mr. Campbell and by Ms. Campbell.

Apparently at the time of the accident there were no specific discussions with Ms. Weckenmann which gave her any cause to believe that she had been responsible for the accident. It was Ms. Weckenmann's view that she was in the appropriate left-hand-turn lane.

From what I understand based upon the circumstances before me, she was of that continuing belief for a considerable period of time. [ 24 ] That belief was supported by a letter she received from the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia on July 14th, 2015, at which point she was informed that ICBC had resolved the responsibility portion of her claim for the damage to her vehicle and that she was not found to be at fault. Accordingly, ICBC undertook the complete repairs of her vehicle without any deductible portion being paid by Ms.

Weckenmann. [ 25 ] However, on November 5th, 2015, several months after the events of the collision on June 30th, 2015, Ms. Weckenmann received a letter from the Ministry of Justice RoadSafetyBC in which it was noted that the RoadSafetyBC branch had received information concerning a fatal motorcycle collision involving her vehicle. In that RoadSafetyBC letter, it specifically provides as follows, and I quote: The information received states that a fatal collision occurred when a motorcyclist rear-ended your vehicle on June 30th, 2015.

Police state that you were intending to make a left-hand turn from a through lane, but stopped in the lane, instead, which resulted in the rear-end collision. [ 26 ] This letter goes on to say that there was going to be a requirement for Ms.

Weckenmann to submit to a driver's medical examination and a driver's medical examination report was to be completed by her physician. [ 27 ] In response to that letter, the Defendant wrote to RoadSafetyBC and stated that the information that they had was not in accord with the information that she had reported to the police, namely, that she was in the left-hand-turning lane waiting for the light to turn green so that she could proceed to make her left-hand turn. [ 28 ] She did not hear back further from any authorities until she received a letter which is undated, but appears to have been

generated by the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles requiring her to submit to a medical examination given the fact that she was approaching the age of 80 years of age. That letter before me only contains the first page and is undated. [ 29 ] However, in response to that particular letter, the Defendant did attend her physician, Dr. N. Crofton. Dr. Crofton completed the form as requested. It appears that it was submitted to the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles.

That particular medical report contains the following provisions under s. (d), and I quote: Concerns were raised as a result of this lady being rear-ended by a motorcycle last summer - concerns re cognition. I have read the November 5th letter from Road Safety B.C. and her very well written intelligent reply. I see no evidence of any cognitive or memory problems - on the contrary, she seems quite sharp and intelligent. I have not done [the reference is unclear in the letter, but appears to be a reference to a cognitive exam to be completed in the doctor's office ].

She does have newly diagnosed arterial fibrillation now being treated with Warfarin and Bisoprolol. I support reassessment in one year. [ 30 ] Subsequent to that medical report being returned to the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles, Ms. Weckenmann received a Summons to a Person Charged requiring her to report to the Duncan Law Courts on July 26th, 2016. [ 31 ] In Defence’s submissions, I am told that until full disclosure had been received from Crown, Ms.

Weckenmann was of the view that she was correctly positioned in the left-hand-turn bay (being the left-hand-turn lane) and that she was not in the travel-through-lane of the southbound portion when she brought her vehicle to a complete stop. However, upon further examination of the Crown's disclosure, including some photographic evidence that was apparently taken by a civilian witness at the scene, Ms. Weckenmann now adopts the position (notwithstanding her earlier honest belief to the contrary) that she was actually in the fast lane rather than in the left hand turn lane.

This resulted in the Motorcycle driven by Mr. Campbell colliding with the rear of her vehicle and further resulted in his death. The suggestion is that in all of the circumstances, the Defendant’s vehicle was being driven by her in a prudent manner prior to the lane transfer to the left. It was then that Ms. Weckenmann brought her vehicle to a complete stop in the mistaken and the incorrect belief that she was far enough off into the left-hand turn bay in order to complete the left-hand turn when the traffic flow permitted. Of course, as it turns out, this was a tragic assumption on her part.

As a result of this collision, Mr. Colin Campbell has lost his life. He leaves behind him a grieving widow and a family significantly and negatively impacted by his untimely death. CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE OFFENDER [ 32 ] At the time of the offence, the Defendant was 78 years of age. She is, at present, approximately 81 years of age, approaching her 82nd birthday. She is a retiree having had a long and productive career in the banking industry. She has been a resident of Vancouver Island since 1977. Her present source of income comes from her Canada Pension and her Old Age Supplement.

She does not have an employer pension. [ 33 ] The Defendant has been driving for an extended period of time between some 50 to 60 years.

In her direct submission to the court, she indicates that she has driven through that particular Intersection on a number of occasions without incident and indicates that she travels something in the range of three times per year up to the Oceanside area on mid-Vancouver Island from Victoria, along Highway No. 1. [ 34 ] In her direct submissions to the court, she expressed that she was very sorry and expressed, what I take to be her genuine remorse for the resulting tragedy to the Campbell family.

I understand that she fully accepts responsibility for what occurred on June 30th, 2015, at which time, in the course of operating her vehicle, Mr. Campbell, on his Motorcycle, collided with the rear of her vehicle as a result of her selection of the incorrect lane in order to complete her left-hand turn. VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENT [ 35 ] Patricia Campbell, widow of the deceased, Colin Campbell, is in court today. She is supported by what appears to be many friends and family. She has provided what I consider to be a very thoughtful, and a very straightforward victim impact statement. It is a moving statement.

It clearly outlines the emotional devastation that she has suffered as the result of the loss of her husband. From what I understand, based upon her victim impact statement, she enjoyed a long and loving relationship with her husband, the product of which is three young adult children who are also struggling to deal with the loss of their father. [ 36 ] In addition to the emotional devastation caused, Ms. Campbell suffered very significant injuries including a broken pelvis and a fractured wrist.

That has resulted in a very lengthy recuperation and she, as I understand it from the victim impact statement, continues to suffer from the physical injuries that she sustained as a result of the collision. She has what appear to be ongoing medical issues that may require further surgical intervention. POSITION OF CROWN AND DEFENCE ON SENTENCING [ 37 ] Essentially, I have what is a joint submission from both Crown and Defence. Crown is seeking a fine in the amount of $1,500 coupled with a nine-month probation order. Crown is not seeking any licence prohibition under the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act .

I understand that Crown is leaving that sanction, if any, to be dispensed by the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles. Thus the Superintendent’s office will or may make a decision relating to any driving prohibition or suspension flowing from the circumstances of this collision.

It is clear that the Crown is not seeking nor do I understand that there was any consideration being given to a custodial sentence for this particular Defendant. [ 38 ] As noted above, Defence joins in with all of these submissions. [ 39 ] It is clear from these submissions that the probation order is being sought to assist and ensure that Ms. Weckenmann completes an assessment or program under what is referred to as a DriveABLE program.

It is agreed that is an important step to be taken in order to determine whether or not any driver in British Columbia has sufficient cognitive processes to react appropriately and quickly if they are

in the operation of a motor vehicle in British Columbia. CASE AUTHORITIES RELIED UPON BY CROWN AND DEFENCE [40] Both Crown and Defence rely upon the following case authorities which have been presented to the court for consideration. Those case authorities are as follows: 1. R. v. Brox, 2016 BCSC 1190; 2. R. v. Bahia, [2013] B.C.J. No. 2840; 3. R. v. Randhawa, 2011 BCPC 372; 4. R. v. Kostiuk, 2011 BCPC 117; 5. R. v. Chand, 2009 BCPC 242; 6. R. v. Chisholm, 2009 BCPC 23; 7. R. v. Cameron, 2004 BCPC 500; and 8. R. v. Ward, [2017] B.C.J.

No. 296, 2017 BCPC 40 . [41] I do not intend to complete a full review of each of those case authorities. I am very familiar with those authorities. Thedecision of R. v. Ward is a recent decision of mine. At paragraphs 29 through 35 of R. v. Ward, I have provided a

summary and reviewof each of the cases referred to above. That

summary and review is consistent with the submissions made by counsel before this courtand with the same emphasis placed by counsel upon those cases and with the same reliance upon the legal propositions set out in thosecases. [42] I note that in each of those cases that they involved a series of different individuals who either pled guilty to or were convictedof the same offence as the Defendant in this case. The decisions are unique in so far as many of the offences of driving without due careand attention described in each case vary significantly as to the particular circumstances.

Each of the offenders in those cases, of course,has their own unique personal circumstances. In some of the cases, the aggravating factors for that individual offender were greater thanfor others. Similarly, many of the mitigating factors were significantly greater than others. [43] The decisions that have been referred to me by counsel support the proposition that in matters of this nature the appropriaterange for a fine will be somewhere between $1,300 and $1,800. I note that in the R. v.

Ward decision, which also involved a collisionbetween a motorcycle and a vehicle driven by the defendant in that case resulting in the death of the motorcyclist, was dealt with by wayof a sentence of a $1,400 fine, with no driving prohibition, that sanction having been left to the discretion of the Superintendent of MotorVehicles. Similarly, the Ward decision involved the type of inadvertence that is clearly evident in this case and also the relevant factorof what may be regarded as a somewhat complex intersection. ANALYSIS [44] In Judge Thomas Woods' decision in R. v.

Chisholm, he makes reference to Judge Stanfield's decision in R. v. Cameron and thedecision of Judge Bowden, then of the Provincial Court of British Columbia, in R. v. Ida, [2008] B.C.J. No. 801 . In both theChisholm decision and the Ida decision, the learned judges dealt with the difficult decision of the imposition of fines on sentences wherethere had been a loss of life as a result of the undue care and attention of the respective defendants.

At paragraph 26 of Chisholm, JudgeWoods states as follows, and I quote: I do wish [to] state clearly, as both Judge Stansfield in Cameron and Judge Bowden in Ida did in their decisions, that there is no equationto be drawn between the quantum of the fine imposed upon Mr. Chisholm here for driving without due care and attention and themagnitude of the loss suffered by the victims of the tragedy, Mr. Ahmed and Ms. Flores.

As Judge Bowden expressed the point: “... no matter what the sentence is under the Motor Vehicle Act, it can do nothing to bring back the victim of this tragedy, nor should itbe taken in any way as putting any particular value on human life. That is impossible.

So, any sentence of the court, particularly where afine is involved, should never be taken to have any meaning in terms of the value of human life which, as everybody would agree, ispriceless.” (at para.15) [45] As noted by Judge Woods in Chisholm, and as I previously noted in Ward, both Judge Woods and I respectfully agreed withthose observations and considered them to apply equally to the respective cases before each of us.

For the purposes of this set of reasons,I adopt these words of Judge Woods, and note that they are apposite observations and apply very significantly to the sentencing case thatis now before me. AGGRAVATING FACTORS [46] Having heard the circumstances outlined by Crown and as accepted by Defence and looking at the other materials before me, Iaccept that the aggravating factors that I must take account in shaping a fit sentence are as follows: first, the horrific consequences of thedeath of Mr. Campbell and the serious and lasting injuries to Ms.

Campbell, being the occupants of the Motorcycle, and which havearisen directly as a consequence of the momentary lapse of the Defendant; second, the apparent lack of care of the Defendant in keepingan adequate and proper observation of the approaching Intersection and the necessity of being in the correct lane in order to complete aproper left-hand turn; third, the somewhat dated driving record of the Defendant, that record being admitted as having offences in thenature of four speeding offences commencing May of 2000 and an offence of failing to stop on a yellow light before entering anintersection and, most recently, an offence in April 2013 of failing to wear a seatbelt.

I am cognizant that none of these particular

offences are similar in nature or relate to the type of offence that is before me for sentencing. MITIGATING FACTORS [ 47 ] The mitigating factors which I accept are applicable to this particular case are as follows: first, the expression by Ms. Weckenmann directly to the court and through counsel of the acceptance of circumstances which are being relied upon by Crown which have given rise to the very unfortunate and tragic collision that occurred; second, the stated remorse of Ms.

Weckenmann both expressed directly to the court and also through counsel; third, the inadvertent nature of the Defendant’s act which has occurred in this case. I accept that there is no indication of any recklessness or intentional disregard for the victims in this case and, in particular, the deceased victim, Mr. Campbell, or for the travelling public which would have been sharing the Intersection of the Trans-Canada Highway and Oyster Sto-lo Road.

Fourth, the apparent general good character and positive contributions that this Defendant has made to her community. [ 48 ] I fully accept and can reasonably conclude on everything that is before me that this is a situation where Ms. Weckenmann, if she could, would turn back the hands of time, but most unfortunately, she is not in a position to do so. CONCLUSION AND DISPOSITION [ 49 ] Taking into account all the factors that I am obliged to do with respect to this sentencing, I am of the view that the suggested fine of $1,500 is an appropriate fine in these circumstances.

Second, I am of the view that a probation order is warranted. I will, therefore, accede to the joint submission that the terms of that probation order will be as follows, and I will get Ms. Weckenmann, please, to stand. [ 50 ] Ms. Weckenmann, in addition to the $1,500 fine, you will be on a probation order and that probation order will be for a period of nine months, I believe is what is being sought -- [ 51 ] MS.

PATSCH: Yes, thank you. [ 52 ] THE COURT: -- and before I outline those terms, I am saying to you, as I say to other people who are before me when probation orders are being imposed, these are things that must be done. They are not to be treated by you in any way as something in the nature of an inconvenient suggestion. So these are things you are obliged to do.

Do you understand that? [ 53 ] THE ACCUSED: Yes, and I certainly -- somehow I feel -- to be honest with you, I feel like a victim here and I really do not -- I am so sorry that that happened, you know, and I -- [ 54 ] THE COURT: Yes, I fully -- I fully appreciate -- [ 55 ] THE ACCUSED: -- you know, and I -- believe me, you know, and I am convinced and I even wanted to go to trial and it is so - - it is so hard on me.

I went through so many things, you know, from the day when it happened, but then I did not hear anything, almost a year, you know, so I have been -- I understand what you want to say to me and what should I say -- [ 56 ] THE COURT: All right. Well, I am not asking you to say [ 57 ] THE ACCUSED: -- Your Honour, it is for myself -- for myself, right. It wouldn't -- yes. Please. [ 58 ] THE COURT: Okay. So the terms of the probation order are going to be as follows. [ 59 ] You shall keep the peace and be of good behaviour. You shall appear before the court when required to do so by the court.

You shall notify the court or your probation officer in advance of any change of name or address, and promptly notify the court or the probation officer of any change of employment or occupation. [ 60 ] No. 201 - within 24 -- I guess it should be -- make it Monday.

I am going to make it on or before 4:00 p.m., Monday -- [ 61 ] THE ACCUSED: Monday? [ 62 ] THE COURT: Yes. [ 63 ] THE ACCUSED: They are open until four o'clock? [ 64 ] THE COURT: That will be Monday, March 27th, 2017, 4:00 p.m., you shall report in person to the probation office at 836 Courtney Street, Victoria, B.C., and after that, you shall report as directed. [ 65 ] No. 204 - the probation officer, in his or her discretion, may excuse you from further reporting once you have satisfactorily completed your assessment or program. [ 66 ] No. 205 - when first reporting to the probation officer, you shall inform him or her of your residential address and telephone number. [ 67 ] No.206 - you shall not change your address or telephone number without -- [ 68 ] THE ACCUSED: Four-ten. [ 69 ] THE COURT: -- without first obtaining the written consent of the probation officer, and then there will be -- the final one will be based on number 251: you shall attend, participate in, and successfully complete any assessment or program as directed by the probation officer which may include a DriveABLE assessment and you shall comply with all the rules and regulations of any such

assessment or program. [ 70 ] In addition to the fine of $1,500, there will be a victim fine surcharge as required under s. 8.1 of the Victims of Crime Act , R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 478. [ 71 ] Mr. Murphy, with respect to time for payment of the fine? [ 72 ] MR. MURPHY: Thirty days, Your Honour. Ms. Weckenmann is prepared to actually pay today, but 30 days she will be able to do that. [ 73 ] THE COURT: All right. Well, I am going to give her 60 days in order to complete the payment of the fine and the victim fine surcharge. [ 74 ] MR.

MURPHY: Thank you, Your Honour. [ 75 ] THE COURT: There will be no order with respect to a driving prohibition as I have been urged by both counsel not to impose such a driving prohibition; I leave that to the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles. [ 76 ] Are there any other matters with which I need to deal regarding this case? [ 77 ] MS. PATSCH: No. [ 78 ] MR. MURPHY: No, Your Honour. [ 79 ] THE COURT: All right. I appreciate the thoughtful submissions provided to me by counsel. (REASONS FOR SENTENCE CONCLUDED)