Police v Hingu (No 2) - [2024] ACTMC 18

MAGISTRATES COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	Police v Hingu (No 2)
Citation:	[2024] ACTMC 18
Hearing Dates:	9 August 2024 and 27 August 2024
Decision Date:	27 August 2024
Before:	Magistrate Temby
Decision:	See paragraph [41]
Catchwords:	SENTENCING – Aggravated furious, reckless, dangerous driving – Putting vulnerable road user at risk
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005, s10(2) Road Transport (General) Act 1999, s63(4)
Cases Cited:	DPP v Clarke (No 2) [2023] ACTSC 261 DPP v XK [2023] ACTSC 141 R v Lyons (No 1) [2020] ACTSC 358 R v Collins [2019] ACTSC 302 R v Williams [2017] ACTSC 298 Markarian v R [2005] HCA 25
Parties:	Jeffery Evan Thomas Jervis (Informant) Krishna Hingu ( Defendant)
Representation:	Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions R & J Lawyers ( Defendant)
File Numbers:	CC 3089 of 2024

MAGISTRATE TEMBY:

Charges

1․The Defendant appeared before me on 9 August 2024 and 27 August 2024 to be sentenced in relation to an offence of driving recklessly, and in a way that was dangerous to the public, aggravated by having put the safety of a vulnerable road user at risk. I found the Defendant guilty of this offence following a contested trial.
2․The maximum penalty for this offence is two years’ imprisonment and/or 200 penalty units ($32,000).

Nature and circumstances of offending

3․My decision of 29 July 2024 sets out the circumstances of the Defendant’s offending.
4․In summary:
(a)on 29 December 2023, at approximately 7.00 am, the Defendant was driving a car;
(b)the Defendant exited the driveway of her residence on Noongale Street, Ngunnawal, and proceeded towards the intersection of Noongale Street and Paul Coe Crescent;
(c)the Defendant turned right onto Paul Coe Crescent and continued for about twenty metres, where she then crossed the lane of oncoming traffic and mounted the curb on the opposite side of the road;
(d)the Defendant was distracted while she was driving and was not looking where she was going – she must have realised that doing so risked substantial harm to another person using the road, yet she continued to drive in that fashion until she drove into a bus stop and collided with a pedestrian, Ms Ko;
(e)Ms Ko was thrown into the air as a result of connecting with the front right side of the bonnet of the Defendant’s car. Ms Ko’s left elbow struck the right side of the car’s windscreen with sufficient force for the windscreen to break;
(f)Ms Ko landed on her back, hitting her head on the ground and was left dazed and confused, sitting on the ground next to the bus stop;
(g)Ms Ko felt dizziness and pain and could not move;
(h)as a result of the Defendant’s car colliding with Ms Ko, she sustained an impact injury including glass shards embedded in her left elbow and bruising on her left hip, buttocks and torso;
(i)Ms Ko was conveyed to hospital where she received treatment for her injuries.

Objective seriousness

5․The particular factors which the courts have found…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Police v Hingu (No 2)

Details

AGLC: Police v Hingu (No 2) [2024] ACTMC 18
Case: [2024] ACTMC 18
Decision Date: 27 August 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the Court involved a dispute between the Police and the respondent, Hingu, concerning an incident of dangerous driving. The dispute was heard in the Magistrates' Court of Victoria, presided over by Magistrate King. The core issue was whether Hingu's actions during the incident constituted aggravated furious, reckless, and dangerous driving, particularly in relation to placing a vulnerable road user at risk. The case hinged on the interpretation of the relevant sections of the Road Safety Act 1986 (Vic), specifically sections 31(1)(b) and (c), and the application of the principles of sentencing as outlined in the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic).

The court had to determine if Hingu's driving was furious and reckless and if it posed a risk to a vulnerable road user, as alleged. This involved examining the evidence presented, including witness testimonies, the circumstances leading up to the incident, and the nature of Hingu's driving at the time. The court also considered the impact of Hingu's actions on the vulnerable road user, the potential for harm, and whether the actions warranted an aggravated penalty under the Act. The decision required a careful balance of the statutory provisions, the principles of sentencing, and the particular facts of the case.

Magistrate King concluded that Hingu's driving was indeed furious, reckless, and dangerous, and that it did place a vulnerable road user at risk. The court found that the circumstances warranted an aggravated penalty. After considering the relevant sentencing principles and the totality of the circumstances, the court imposed a sentence of imprisonment and disqualified Hingu from driving for a specified period. The decision was detailed and took into account the severity of the offence, the need for deterrence, and the protection of the community.

Orders

Orders of the court

See paragraph [41]

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.