STATE OF TASMANIA v SHARON LOUISE GORDON 4 APRIL 2023
COMMENTS ON PASSING SENTENCE ESTCOURT J
The defendant Sharon Louise Gordon has pleaded guilty to one count of dangerous driving causing grievous bodily harm.
The particulars of that charge are that at Bruny Island in Tasmania on or about the 31st day of December 2021, she caused grievous bodily harm to Elizabeth Jedamzik, Dominique La Fontaine and Peter Kirk-Williams by driving a Toyota HiAce campervan in a manner or speed that was dangerous to the public having regard to all of the circumstances of the case.
At approximately 9:30pm on that day the defendant drove that vehicle along Hanssons Road, Bruny Island. Hanssons Road is an unsealed road which runs in a westerly direction from Adventure Bay Road, that is the main road, and ends at a semi-rural property. There is a single residence on the property, number 50 Hanssons Road, Adventure Bay.
The residence is approximately 200 metres from the end of Hanssons Road. Where the driveway from the residence meets the end of Hanssons Road there is a fence and a gate. There is an unobstructed view from the residence to the fence and gate. This marks the boundary to the property. The gate can be locked with a padlock. At the time the defendant was driving her vehicle along Hanssons Road the gate was locked. She had earlier left the property in the vehicle after having been drinking heavily since early afternoon and arguing with others at the property, including her partner. She was returning to the property.
As she drove the vehicle towards the gated entrance to the property the front left hand side of the defendant’s van struck the right hand side, and open driver’s side door of a vehicle that was idling on the road adjacent to the gate.
That vehicle, a Toyota Land cruiser station wagon, had been driven to the location by Peter Kirk-Williams. Mr Kirk-Williams was standing in the area of the open door waiting for the gate to be opened. He had no opportunity to take evasive action and the force of the impact catapulted him over the door and onto the bonnet of his vehicle.
After impact with Mr Kirk-Williams and his vehicle, the defendant accelerated her vehicle and continued the trajectory towards the gate. Two persons were standing at the gate. Dominique La Fontaine was standing on the Hanssons Road side. Elizabeth Jedamzik was standing on the other side. She was in the process of unlocking the gate so that Mr Kirk-Williams and Ms La Fontaine could drive their car through.
The defendant’s vehicle struck Ms La Fontaine, the gate and subsequently Ms Jedamzik. The gate was flattened and the timber post securing it was ripped from the ground. Both complainants were crushed and or thrown by the impact.
The defendant did not stop her vehicle. She continued to accelerate along the driveway for approximately 30 metres. The vehicle stopped when it became stuck in a culvert or ditch.
The State asserts that the defendant was driving in a manner and speed that was dangerous to the public at the time she struck each of the three complainants. This included her actions of driving the vehicle whilst heavily intoxicated, on an unsealed road, at or close to dark, at a speed that did not provide her sufficient time to see the vehicle obstructing part of the road, nor the locked gate, when there were people at or near the gate.
The injuries to each of the complainants were significant. The manner and speed of the defendant’s driving resulted in the impact with the vehicle, the gate and each of the complainants and caused each serious injuries.
The defendant initially remained seated in the driver’s seat until witnesses from the house arrived. Police and special emergency service members were called to attend.
Constable Leonie Ridge attended at 9:54pm. By this time Tasmania Ambulance Services were already in attendance. Constable Ridge was directed to the defendant who was then lying in a hollow in long grass, a distance from where the van had come to rest. The defendant identified herself as Louis and told the officer “I’m a bit pissed ……I put my foot on the accelerator and fucked up big time”. The Officer noted she appeared to be affected by alcohol. A breath test was completed at the scene. The defendant stated “I know I am over”. It is clear that she did not know that she had hit the other vehicle or the three people injured.
The defendant was placed under arrest and later a sample of blood was taken which, when analysed, revealed a blood alcohol reading of 0.137g. A report was later provided by Forensic Services Tasmania which back calculated the defendant’s blood alcohol reading. The sample of her blood was taken at 2:56am on the 1st of January. The blood sample was found to contain 0.137g of alcohol per 100ml of blood. The time of the accident was 9:40pm. Working backwards from the blood alcohol analysis result, the estimated blood alcohol concentration at the time of the accident, was between 0.184 grams per 100ml of blood and 0.290 grams per 100ml of blood.
As a result of being struck by the vehicle, Ms Jedamzik was flown to the Royal Hobart Hospital. She was intubated and ventilated and taken to surgery as a result of a severe de-gloving injury to her left leg. On arrival, the injury was grossly contaminated with grass and organic matter. The injury resulted in eventual necrosis and the loss of almost all the skin overlying the lower leg muscles, tendons and bones – her tibia and fibia were exposed. The injury to her leg required five trips to theatre for management and debridement.
Ms Jedamzic also suffered from a small right sided pneumothorax, a ruptured bladder, two fractured ribs and bilateral pelvic fractures. Ms Jedamzic remained in hospital from 1 January 2022 until the 28th of January 2022. It was anticipated that it would take two months for the skin on her leg to fully heal.
Ms La Fontaine arrived at the Royal Hobart Hospital by air in a critical condition. She was agitated with a decreased Glasgow Coma Score of 8. She was unable to follow instructions or adhere to spinal precautions. Accordingly, the decision was made to intubate her and place her in a coma. She was examined and underwent a CT trauma series from her head to her pelvis.
In terms of her physical injuries, she had left periorbital bruising indicative of trauma to the head. The CT scan demonstrated a small subarachnoid haemorrhage in the right parietal and frontal lobes. Her right wrist was deformed, which was confirmed by x-ray to be a radial styloid fracture. She also received open wounds and deformity of the left second and third fingers at proximal interphalangeal joints which was confirmed on x-ray to be open dislocations of the joints.
Ms La Fontaine was transferred to the ICU. She was woken from her coma on 3 January. She was found to have post traumatic amnesia which was consistent with her sustained traumatic brain injury. She underwent two washouts and debridement of her finger injuries on the 3rd and 4th of January in the operating theatre, and a fixation of her right radial styloid fracture on 4 January.
On 17 January, Ms La Fontaine was transferred to the acute rehabilitation unit. She still suffered from post-traumatic amnesia, which resolved by the time she was discharged on 27 January.
Ms La Fontaine’s longer term neurological prognosis includes affected speech, cognition, balance and extreme fatigue.
Mr Kirk-William suffered from a fractured pelvis, a large head wound, concussion, bilateral pelvis fractures and multi-ligament injury to his left knee. He underwent surgery on his pelvis and at the time of his discharge, still required further surgery for knee reconstruction.
I have heard read Victim Impact Statements by or on behalf of each of the three victims. The lives of each of them have been irretrievably damaged and each have suffered terribly, both physically and mentally. They are all still a long way from their best recovery and none of them will ever have back the lives they enjoyed before they were struck by the defendant’s vehicle. It is well settled that the fact that the consequences of the crime were horrendous for the three victims, justifies an increase in the severity of the sentence.
The defendant was born in Hobart, completed high school at Sacred Heart, completing year 10. She then commenced employment at a pharmacy in 1978 before embarking on a ten year period of employment in the hospitality industry. She is an avid lap swimmer, bike rider and bush walker. She has always had dogs and spent many hours walking them. She is extremely health conscious. However, while working in the hospitality industry, she found herself working long hours, the work was often stressful, dealing with unruly patrons and pressures from employers and was almost always concluded with staff drinks at the end of a shift. There was a culture of binge drinking. The defendant became immersed in that culture and developed a lifelong binge drinking problem.
That alcohol problem was in complete contrast to her otherwise healthy lifestyle but unfortunately it continued after she left the hospitality industry. She would not drink heavily or at all during the week but often succumbed to binge drinking on the weekends. That was particularly so during times of personal crises or other emotional upheaval. In December, 2021 the defendant was not coping with her personal life. She had been charged in September, 2021 with drink driving and was bitterly disappointed in herself at having done so.
In about 1989 she decided to change career paths and did two years of studying a Welfare Course at TAFE, then began work as a fitness instructor before, in 1994, completing a Diploma in remedial massage. She then worked as a remedial masseuse for 27 years, both in studio and later becoming self-employed. She owns her own house which is subject to mortgage and her incarceration makes it likely that she will face bankruptcy.
She has two children, aged 32 and 31 years. She is in a stable, long term relationship of approximately 4 ½ years.
The defendant has an unenviable record of alcohol related driving offences, including three prior convictions for exceeding .05%, two for driving under the influence and two for driving whilst disqualified.
She is not, of course, to be sentenced for her record but as was said by Chief Justice Crawford in his dissenting judgment in Moyle v Tasmania [2010] TASCCA 2 at [19]-[20], that the defendant was driving whilst disqualified with a blood alcohol level of at least 0.184% were relevant considerations in that they deny that defendant leniency and demonstrated the need for personal deterrence.
The circumstances of the defendant’s offending and its consequences for the lives of three people and their families, render it a grave example of this crime, not unlike the case of Moyle, from which I draw some guidance. There are no significant mitigating factors although I take into account the defendant’s plea of guilty and her very obvious deep remorse. The defendant, of course, had ample opportunity to come to grips with her binge drinking well prior to the events of this evening.
The defendant is convicted of dangerous driving causing grievous bodily harm and driving whilst disqualified. I impose a single sentence of three years’ imprisonment, backdated to 1 April 2022 and order that she not be eligible for parole until she has served half of that sentence. The defendant is disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver’s licence for a period of two years from her release from prison.