Legal Research
Cases
R v Judge

R v Judge

Case [2021] ACTSC 118 2 June 2021

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Judge
Citation:	[2021] ACTSC 118
Hearing Date:	2 June 2021
DecisionDate:	2 June 2021
Before:	Mossop J
Decision:	See [45]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and punishment – sentence – culpable driving causing grievous bodily harm – driving with prescribed drug in oral fluid or blood – offender drove with the victim in tray of ute – limited criminal history – medium to low risk of general reoffending – general deterrence – recognition of harm to victim – sentence of imprisonment imposed
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), s 29(4) Road Transport (Alcohol and Drugs) Act 1977 (ACT), ss 15AA, 20(1), 34(2) Road Transport (General) Act 1999 (ACT), ss 62(1), 69
Cases Cited:	R v Barton [2016] ACTSC 162; 77 MVR 47 R v Castles [2018] ACTSC 358; 87 MVR 187 R v Fanti (Unreported, Supreme Court of the ACT, Penfold J, 8 January 2014) R v Fountain [2018] ACTSC 329; 87 MVR 72 R v Higgins [2020] ACTSC 299; 94 MVR 367 R v Ogle (No 2) [2018] ACTSC 126 R v Pullen [2018] NSWCCA 264 R v Richardson [2016] ACTSC 133 R v Whyte [2002] NSWCCA 343; 55 NSWLR 252 R v Woods [2017] ACTSC 17 The Queen v Angel [2021] NSWDC 4
Parties:	The Queen ( Crown) Steven Judge ( Offender)
Representation:	Counsel E Wren ( Crown) J Maher ( Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions ( Crown) Kamy Saeedi Law ( Offender)
File Numbers:	SCC 68 of 2021 SCC 69 of 2021

MOSSOP J:

Introduction

The offender, Steven Judge, has pleaded guilty to one count of culpable driving causing grievous bodily harm, contrary to s 29(4) of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT). The maximum penalty for that offence is 10 years’ imprisonment.

An automatic driver licence disqualification period applies for the offence of culpable driving pursuant to s 62(1) of the Road Transport (General) Act 1999 (ACT). For a first‑time offender, that period is six months, or if a longer period is ordered by the court, that longer period: see s 62(1)(a) Road Transport (General) Act.

The offender also pleaded guilty to a transfer charge of driving with a prescribed drug in his blood, contrary to s 20(1) of the Road Transport (Alcohol and Drugs) Act 1977 (ACT). The maximum penalty for committing that offence as a repeat offender is imprisonment for 3 months, 25 penalty units or both.

An automatic driver licence disqualification period also applies to the offence of driving with a prescribed drug in oral fluid or blood. For a repeat offender, that period is five years, or a shorter period ordered by the court that is not less than 12 months: see s 34(2) of the Road Transport (Alcohol and Drugs) Act 1977 (ACT).

Both offences arise out of a single incident which took place on 7 December 2019.

Facts

The facts relating to the offending are agreed…

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 Judge

Details

AGLC: R v Judge [2021] ACTSC 118
Case: [2021] ACTSC 118
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, the case of R v Judge involved the offender, Steven Judge, who pleaded guilty to one count of culpable driving causing grievous bodily harm and a transfer charge of driving with a prescribed drug in his blood. The court had to decide the appropriate sentence for these offences, taking into account the objective seriousness of the crimes, the subjective circumstances of the offender, and the various sentencing considerations. The key legal issues included the relevance of the offender's limited criminal history, his alcohol and drug use, and the need for general deterrence and recognition of harm to the victim. The court considered the offender's personal circumstances, including his employment, relationship status, and risk of reoffending. The reasoning of the court led to the conclusion that a custodial sentence was necessary for the offence of culpable driving causing grievous bodily harm, and a fine and disqualification from driving for the drug-related charge.

Justice Mossop determined that a sentence of 21 months' imprisonment, reduced for the offender's guilty plea, would be appropriate for the culpable driving charge. The sentence would be suspended after the offender served five months' full-time detention. For the charge of driving with a prescribed drug in his blood, the offender was fined $500 and disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver licence for 12 months. The periods of disqualification from holding or obtaining a driver licence were ordered to be concurrent. This decision reflects the court's emphasis on general deterrence, denunciation of the conduct, and recognition of the harm done to the victim, while also considering the offender's limited criminal history and subjective circumstances.

Orders