R v Higgins

Case [2020] ACTSC 299

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

R v Higgins

Citation:

[2020] ACTSC 299

Hearing Dates:

7 August 2020, 13 August 2020 and 3 September 2020

DecisionDate:

6 November 2020

Before:

Robinson AJ

Decision:

See [108]

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – culpable driving causing grievous bodily harm – where sentence exceeds two years imprisonment – whether Intensive Correction Order is appropriate

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) s 29(4)
Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) s 42
Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 7, 11, 10(3), 12, 12A, 33, 33(1)(e), 35
Crimes (Sentencing and Restorative Justice) Amendment Bill 2015
Evidence Act 2011 (ACT) s 4(2)
Road Transport (General) Act 1999 (ACT) s 62

Cases Cited:

Daetz v The Queen [2003] NSWCCA 216
Filippou v The Queen [2015] HCA 29; 256 CLR 47
Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25; 228 CLR 357
Munda v State of Western Australia [2013] HCA 38; 249 CLR 600
Nguyen v The Queen [2016] HCA 17; 256 CLR 656
R v Whyte [2002] NSWCCA 343; 55 NSWLR 252
Silvano v The Queen [2008] NSWCCA 118
Whybrow v The Queen [2008] NSWCCA 270

Text Cited:

Explanatory Statement, Crimes (Sentencing and Restorative Justice) Amendment Bill 2015

Parties:

The Queen (Crown)

Timothy Higgins (Offender)

Representation:

Counsel

P Dixon (Crown)

K Ginges (Offender)

Solicitors

ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)

McKenna Taylor (Offender)

File Number/s:

SCC 347 of 2019 and SCC 346 of 2019

ROBINSON AJ:

Factual Background

  1. At about 1:50am on 18 April 2019, Timothy William Higgins, the offender, was driving a white Hyundai Getz sedan westbound on Bowen Drive, Barton, ACT.  The offender had just left a residence in Fyshwick and was travelling to the Belconnen area.  There were three passengers in the car:

(a)Paola Sia, aged 18, was seated in the front passenger seat;

(b)Dimitri Velanis, aged 20, was seated in the rear left passenger seat; and

(c)EB, aged 19, was seated in the rear right passenger seat.

  1. The offender was aged 21. He was driving on a provisional licence which he had held for two years or so.

  1. The offender drove westbound along Bowen Drive and under Kings Avenue Bridge, towards King Edward Terrace.  Bowen Drive is a multi-lane arterial road comprising two lanes westbound and one lane eastbound.  The roadway is made of sealed asphalt.  The lanes are divided by broken line markings and white reflective cats eye markers.  The edge of the roadway is marked by a solid white line, painted traffic islands and yellow reflective cats eye markers.  The opposing lanes of traffic are separated by a traffic island.  The traffic island has a low vegetative and mulch ground cover.  The roadway sweeps to the left in a moderate curve, the road has a positive longitudinal gradient, and a positive superelevation from the right lane falling towards the left lane.  The speed limit is 50 km/h.  There are sign posts on the left and…

Continue reading R v Higgins

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Higgins [2020] ACTSC 299
Case
[2020] ACTSC 299
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Higgins, the defendant was charged with causing grievous bodily harm by dangerous driving. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, where the primary focus was on determining an appropriate sentence for the defendant given the severity of the offence. The defendant, who had a previous record, was facing potential imprisonment, and the court was tasked with deciding whether an alternative to imprisonment, such as an Intensive Correction Order, would be suitable.

The legal issues before the court revolved around the nature and appropriateness of the sentence for the offence of culpable driving causing grievous bodily harm. Given the defendant's prior criminal history and the potential for a sentence exceeding two years imprisonment, the court needed to weigh the merits of imposing a custodial sentence against the possibility of an Intensive Correction Order. The decision hinged on the principles of sentencing, including deterrence, rehabilitation, and proportionality, as well as the specific circumstances of the offence and the defendant.

The court considered the severity of the harm caused by the defendant's actions, his criminal history, and the likelihood of rehabilitation through an Intensive Correction Order. It was noted that the harm caused was significant, impacting the victim's quality of life. However, the court also acknowledged the defendant's potential for rehabilitation and the benefits of an Intensive Correction Order in terms of community service and structured rehabilitation. Ultimately, the court found that an Intensive Correction Order was an appropriate sentence, balancing the need for punishment with the potential for rehabilitation and community benefit.

The court ordered that the defendant be subject to an Intensive Correction Order, with specific terms and conditions to ensure the defendant's rehabilitation and community service. This decision reflects the court's approach to sentencing, balancing the principles of deterrence, punishment, and rehabilitation in the context of culpable driving causing grievous bodily harm.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [108]

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.