Higgins v The Queen

The Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory heard an appeal by Joshua Higgins against the sentence imposed by a judge of that Court for the offence of manslaughter. The appellant had been convicted of manslaughter, contrary to s 15 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), and sentenced to eight years and six months imprisonment, with a non-parole period of five years and three months. The grounds of appeal alleged specific errors in the sentencing process, including a failure to provide an adequate discount for assistance in the administration of justice under s 35A of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), and a failure to properly apply the principles established in *R v Verdins*. The appellant also contended that the sentence was manifestly excessive.

The legal issues before the Court were whether the sentencing judge erred in failing to grant a greater discount under s 35A of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 for the appellant's offer to plead guilty to manslaughter and for the conduct of the trial, and whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. Specifically, the Court considered whether the 15% discount applied for the offer to plead guilty was inadequate, and whether the sentencing judge failed to give sufficient weight to the manner in which the trial was conducted by the defence in facilitating the administration of justice. The Court was also required to determine if the principles from *R v Verdins*, concerning the impact of mental conditions and custody on sentencing, were adequately applied.

The Court dismissed the appeal. Regarding the s 35A discount, it was held that the 15% reduction for the offer to plead guilty to manslaughter was appropriate, reflecting the unrealised utilitarian value of avoiding a trial. The Court found no error in the sentencing judge's assessment of the conduct of the trial, noting that the defence had not clearly articulated how the trial was conducted efficiently or pragmatically, and that the concessions made by the defence were of limited significance given the overwhelming evidence, particularly concerning causation. The Court also found that the sentencing judge was not obliged to explicitly mention every submission, and the absence of a specific reference to the Crown's concession regarding the conduct of the trial did not demonstrate error. The Court concluded that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and that the *Verdins* principles were adequately considered.