R v Higgins (No 2) - [2021] ACTSC 202

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Higgins (No 2)
Citation:	[2021] ACTSC 202
Hearing Dates:	26 July; 16 August 2021
Decision Date:	26 August 2021
Before:	Burns J
Decision:	See [39]–[43]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – manslaughter – jury trial – jury acquitted offender of murder – jury found offender guilty of statutory alternative of manslaughter –
whether jury entered verdict of manslaughter on basis of unlawful
or dangerous act, provocation or diminished responsibility –
whether proven beyond reasonable doubt that the offender had one of the required mental states for murder when committing
offence of manslaughter – whether offender killed victim while in state of drug-induced psychosis – where offender suffered from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder – where offender was sleep deprived and significantly intoxicated at time of offending –
whether offender killed victim in circumstances where offender perceived the victim had sexually assaulted and threatened to kill
offender – consideration of risk to community – where offender offered to plead guilty to offence of manslaughter – consideration
of s 35A of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT)
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) s 15(2)
Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) s 35A
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Joshua Higgins (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel
T Hickey (Crown) K Ginges (Offender)
Solicitors
ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Hugo Law Group (Offender)
File Number:	SCC 267 of 2019
BURNS J:

1. Joshua Higgins, on 1 April 2021, after a trial which extended over 21 days, a jury acquitted you of a charge of murder but found you guilty of the manslaughter of Jae-Ho Oh. It is now my responsibility to sentence you for that offence. The crime of manslaughter, contrary to s 15(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), in the present
circumstances, carries a maximum penalty of 20 years’ imprisonment.
2. As part of my responsibilities in sentencing you, I must determine the facts upon which you are to be sentenced. I am not required to sentence you on the factual basis most favourable to you, but any facts that I find must be consistent with the jury verdict. I must be satisfied of any fact which makes the offence more serious to the standard of beyond reasonable doubt. On the other hand, I need only be satisfied of the existence of a fact which makes the offence less serious on the balance of probabilities.
3. An added complication in the present case is that there were three pathways available to the jury to return a verdict of guilty of manslaughter. I will return to that in a moment.

The facts

4. You and the victim had been friends for several years before 11 March 2019, the date of the offence. On 9 March 2019, after you spent the day in the Southern Highlands with friends, you returned to Canberra and lost all your money gambling. Your mother told you not to return to her house where…

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 R v Higgins (No 2)

Details

AGLC: R v Higgins (No 2) [2021] ACTSC 202
Case: [2021] ACTSC 202
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Joshua Higgins was acquitted of murder but found guilty of manslaughter by a jury in the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence for the offence, taking into account the circumstances surrounding the incident and the offender's background. The primary legal issues were identifying the basis for the manslaughter conviction, assessing the offender's mental state at the time of the offence, and evaluating the appropriate sentence considering the mitigating factors and the risk to the community.

The court found that the offender was not acting in self-defence, as the jury was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that he was not defending himself at the time of the fatal acts. The court concluded that the offender perceived the victim to have sexually assaulted and threatened him, which was influenced by his Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and significant alcohol intoxication. The court ruled out drug-induced psychosis as a factor in the offence. The court also noted that the offender's attack on the victim went beyond what was reasonably necessary for self-defence, despite the perceived provocation.

Considering the offender's history of PTSD, substance abuse, and previous attempts at rehabilitation, the court assessed his moral culpability to be in the lower half of the mid-range. The offender's age, background, family support, and expressed remorse were also considered. The court determined that imprisonment was the appropriate sentence, with a discount applied for the offender's offer to plead guilty to manslaughter. The offender was sentenced to eight years and six months' imprisonment, with a non-parole period of five years and three months. The court also cancelled previous good behaviour orders and re-sentenced the offender to three months' imprisonment for those offences.

This case underscores the importance of considering mental health, intoxication, and perceived threats in assessing criminal responsibility and determining an appropriate sentence. The court balanced the severity of the offence with the offender's background and mitigating factors, resulting in a sentence that aims to address the offender's rehabilitation needs while ensuring public safety.

Orders