R v Hawkins

Case [2019] ACTSC 103

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

R v Hawkins

Citation:

[2019] ACTSC 103

Hearing Date:

28 March 2019

DecisionDate:

26 April 2019

Before:

Loukas-Karlsson J

Decision:

See [81].

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – negligent driving inflicting grievous bodily harm – dishonestly driving a motor vehicle without consent – guilty pleas – disadvantaged background

Legislation Cited:

Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Act 1999 (ACT) s 6

Road Transport (Driver Licensing) Act 1999 (ACT) s 31

Road Transport (General) Act 1999 s63

Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) s 318

Cases Cited:

Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; 249 CLR 571

Cantwell v Nozhat [2017] ACTSC 14

Choi v R [2007] NSWCCA 150

Douglas v The Queen [1995] FCA 41; 56 FCR 465

Lutz v JK [2016] ACTSC 200; 310 FLR 392

Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25; 228 CLR 357

Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59

R v Ang [2014] ACTCA 17

R v Hawkins [2015] ACTSC 333

R v Hawkins [2019] ACTSC 10

R v Henry [1999] NSWCCA 111; 46 NSWLR 364

R v Martin [2007] VSCA 291; 20 VR 14

R v Meyboom [2012] ACTCA 48

R v MMK [2006] NSWCCA 272; 164 A Crim R 481

R v Osenkowski (1982) 30 SASR 212; 5 A Crim R 394

R v Toumo’ua [2017] ACTCA 9; 12 ACTLR 103

Zdravkovic v The Queen [2016] ACTCA 53

Parties:

The Queen (Crown)

Christopher Ronald Hawkins (Offender)

Representation:

Counsel

Mr P Dixon (Crown)

Mr S McLaughlin (Offender)

Solicitors

ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)

Legal Aid ACT (Offender)

File Numbers:

SCC150B of 2018; SCC315 of 2018; SCC70 of 2019

LOUKAS-KARLSSON J

Introduction

  1. On 27 March 2019, Christopher Hawkins (the offender) pleaded guilty to negligent driving causing grievous bodily harm (CC2019/3643) contrary to s 6 of the Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Act 1999 (ACT) (at the time of the offending, maximum penalty 1 year of imprisonment, a fine of $15,000 and 3 months disqualification).

  1. Subsequently, on 28 March 2019, before me, the offender pleaded guilty to the following offences:

(a) driving unlicensed (repeat offender) having never held an Australian drivers licence (CC2017/12205) contrary to s 31(2) of the Road Transport (Driver Licensing) Act 1999 (ACT) (Driver Licensing Act) (at the time of the offending, maximum penalty 6 months of imprisonment, a fine of $7,500, or both, and a licence disqualification of 3 years);

(b)     exceeding the speed limit by equal to or less than 15 km/h in a non-school zone (CC2017/12206) contrary to rule 20 of the Australian Road Rules (at the time of the offending, maximum penalty a fine of $3,000); and

(c)dishonestly driving a motor vehicle without consent (CC2017/12483) contrary to s 318(2) of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) (at the time of the offending, maximum penalty 5 years of imprisonment, a fine of $75,000, or both).

  1. The prosecution discontinued an associated…

Continue reading R v Hawkins

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Hawkins [2019] ACTSC 103
Case
[2019] ACTSC 103
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case before the court, the defendant, Hawkins, faced charges stemming from two separate incidents involving motor vehicles. The first incident involved negligent driving resulting in grievous bodily harm, while the second pertained to driving a motor vehicle without consent and doing so dishonestly. Both matters were heard in the court, which was tasked with determining the appropriate sentences for the defendant's convictions. The court had to consider the principles of sentencing, particularly the necessity to address the defendant's disadvantaged background, which was seen as a significant mitigating factor. The overarching issue was to balance the need for punishment with the necessity to provide rehabilitation, given the defendant's personal circumstances.

The court was required to navigate several legal issues, including the appropriate weight to be given to the defendant's background in mitigating the severity of the sentences. It also needed to address the cumulative effect of the two offenses on the community and the need for general deterrence. Additionally, the court had to ensure that the sentences were proportionate and just, taking into account the defendant's guilty pleas and the gravity of the offenses. The court had to ensure that the sentences reflected both the need for punishment and the potential for rehabilitation.

The court, in delivering its judgment, recognised the defendant's disadvantaged background as a substantial mitigating factor. It took into account the defendant's early guilty pleas, which demonstrated some level of remorse and acknowledgment of wrongdoing. The court also considered the impact of the offenses on the victims and the need for general deterrence. After weighing all the relevant factors, the court decided that a combination of imprisonment and community service would be appropriate. The court imposed a sentence that aimed to balance the need for punishment with the potential for rehabilitation, considering the defendant's background and the circumstances of the offenses.

The final orders of the court included a sentence of imprisonment for the negligent driving offence, coupled with a period of community service for the offense of driving without consent. The court also ordered that the sentences be served concurrently to some extent, reflecting the need to address both offenses in a manner that was just and proportionate.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [81].

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.