R v Heasley - [2007] SADC 138

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v HEASLEY
[2007] SADC 138
Decision of His Honour Chief Judge Worthington
19 December 2007
CRIMINAL LAW - GENERAL MATTERS
Sentencing - Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988 s32(5)(ba), s32(10)(d) and (e), s32A(2) and (3) - defendant guilty of causing serious harm (paraplegia) to victim by dangerous driving - victim requires use of a wheelchair and some help from others in daily living - defendant sentenced to 2 years 3 months in prison for that offence - whether defendant has committed "a serious offence against the person" within meaning of s32 (10)(d) of Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act thereby requiring court to fix a minimum non-parole period of four-fifths length of sentence under s32(5)(ba) - criteria - meaning of "incapable of independent function" and "total incapacity" in s32(10).
Held: Not a "serious offence against the person" as defined in s32(10)(d) and (e) - no mandatory minimum non-parole period.
Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 s19A(3); Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988 ss32(5), s32(10), s32A; Criminal Law (Sentencing) (Dangerous Offenders) Amendment Act 2007 s11; Insurance Contracts Regulations 1985 (Cwlth) Reg 18, referred to.
Teubner v Humble (1962-1963) 108 CLR 491; QBE Insurance Limited v Jande (1994) 8 ANZ Insurance Cases 61-270, considered.

R v HEASLEY
[2007] SADC 138

The defendant, Isreal Turei Heasley was sentenced in this court today for a number of offences, the most serious being that on 20 July 2006 he drove a motor vehicle at Largs Bay in a manner which was dangerous to the public and thereby caused serious harm to Phillip Taupe Thomas, contrary to s19A(3) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935. After taking into account his early plea of guilty I imposed a head sentence on that count of 2 years 3 months in prison.
He was before the court for sentence also on two other driving offences committed that day as well as for breach of a bond and, because of that breach, for sentence on five offences committed in 2004. The details of offences other than causing harm by dangerous driving are not relevant for present purposes but, after imposing penalties for those offences, the end result was a total effective sentence of 2 years 10 months and 6 weeks with a non-parole period of 1 year 9 months, both deemed to have commenced on 27 November 2007 when I revoked bail and remanded him in custody. He is also disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver’s licence for a period of 8 years.
In fixing the non-parole period I declined to apply s32(5)(ba) of the Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988 (“the Sentencing Act”) which provides that in certain circumstances there is to be a mandatory minimum non-parole period that is four-fifths the length of the sentence. These are my reasons for that decision.
The details of the offending are set out in my sentencing remarks but, as relevant here, the facts can be summarised as follows. The defendant was driving a car south along Victoria…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Heasley and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2007] SADC 138
Decision Date: 19 December 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Heasley involved a defendant who had been found guilty of causing serious harm to another person by dangerous driving. The victim sustained severe injuries, including paraplegia, and now requires the use of a wheelchair and assistance from others in daily activities. The defendant was sentenced to a term of 2 years and 3 months in prison for this offence. The primary legal issue before the court was whether this constituted a "serious offence against the person" as defined under section 32(10)(d) and (e) of the Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988, which would mandate the court to set a minimum non-parole period of four-fifths the length of the sentence under section 32(5)(ba).

The court examined the criteria for determining if the offence met the criteria for a "serious offence against the person." This involved interpreting the terms "incapable of independent function" and "total incapacity" as used in section 32(10) of the Act. The court concluded that, while the victim's injuries were severe, they did not meet the threshold for being considered a "serious offence against the person" as defined by the statute. The court's reasoning hinged on the specific definitions and the extent to which the victim's condition met the statutory criteria.

Consequently, the court determined that the defendant's sentence did not require the imposition of a mandatory minimum non-parole period under the Act. The court's decision focused on the precise statutory definitions and the particular circumstances of the victim's injuries and their impact on daily living. As a result, the original sentence of 2 years and 3 months in prison remained intact without any mandatory non-parole period added.

Orders