R v Laidlaw

[2022] ACTSC 215

Judgment Summary

Supreme Court

Australian Capital Territory

This summary has been prepared for general information only. It is not intended to be a substitute for the judgment of the Court or to be used in any later consideration of the

Court’s judgment.

General enquiry contact details

Telephone: [phone]

Email: [email protected]

Tuesday, 23 August 2022

R v Laidlaw [2022] ACTSC 215

McCallum CJ

The Supreme Court has sentenced an offender, Mitchell Laidlaw, to a term of imprisonment for 2 years and 3 months to be suspended after he has served 3 months on the condition that he enter into a good behaviour order for the remaining 2 years. The offender was convicted of culpable driving causing death and drug driving following a motor vehicle accident on Commonwealth Avenue in which Susan Salthouse, a respected disability advocate in the Canberra community, died.

The Crown accepted that the accident was caused by momentary inattention or misjudgement and that Mr Laidlaw was not under the influence of methamphetamine at the time of the collision having only used that drug a few nights prior. For these reasons, the Court considered that the objective seriousness of the offence was towards the lower end of the range for such offences. The Pre-Sentence Report found that Mr Laidlaw was a caring parent with strong family relationships and this was confirmed by glowing character references. The Court was also satisfied from oral evidence given by his partner and mother that he had been devastated by the death of Ms Salthouse and was very remorseful. This was demonstrated by his agreement to participate in Restorative Justice (a process whereby victims can discuss with offenders how the offence has affected them

and offenders can accept responsibility for their actions) with Ms Salthouse’s relatives if

they wished to do so.

However, the Pre-Sentence Report also noted that Mr Laidlaw had recently spiralled into increased drug use and was struggling to find employment due to the charges against him. For this reason, the Court determined that the sentence must focus on promoting Mr

Laidlaw’s rehabilitation.

In those circumstances, the Court considered that Mr Laidlaw’s experience in custody was

sufficient to deter him from future offending but that he required community-based supervision in the long term to address his illicit substance use and employment issues. For that reason, the Court imposed a good behaviour order for 2 years following his release from prison which included conditions that he comply with reasonable directions of ACT Corrective Services as to drug rehabilitation, financial counselling and submission to drug

testing. Mr Laidlaw’s driver’s licence is disqualified for the duration of that period.