Legal Research
Cases
R v Seymour

R v Seymour

Case [2021] ACTSC 152 7 June 2021

Licence Disqualification

Rehabilitation

Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Seymour
Citation:	[2021] ACTSC 152
Hearing Date(s):	28 May 2021
DecisionDate:	7 June 2021
Before:	Refshauge J
Decision:	1. Michael Seymour be convicted of driving at a police officer and be sentenced to 27 months imprisonment, commencing on 16 October 2020 and ending on 15 January 2023. 2. Michael Seymour be convicted of aggravated dangerous driving and be sentenced to 14 months imprisonment, commencing on 16 July 2022 and ending on 15 September 2023, and be disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver licence for 12 months. 3. Michael Seymour be convicted of aggravated dangerous driving and be sentenced to 14 months imprisonment, commencing on 16 March 2023 and ending on 15 May 2024, and be disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver licence for 12 months. 4. Michael Seymour be convicted of drive while disqualified and be required to sign an undertaking to comply with the offender’s good behaviour obligations under s 85 of the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) for a period of 12 months from today, 7 June 2021, and also be disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver licence for 12 months. 5. Michael Seymour be convicted of drug driving and be fined $500 with 12 months to pay, and be disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver licence for 12 months. 6. Michael Seymour’s convicted for drug driving be confirmed, the Good Behaviour Order made in relation to this offence in the Magistrates Court be cancelled, and he be re-sentenced to a fine of $300 with 12 months to pay. 7. It be directed that the multiple disqualification periods relating to holding or obtaining a licence be served concurrently under s 69 of the Road Transport (General) Act 1999 (ACT). 8. A Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order for Michael Seymour be made under s 12A of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) for 2 years from today, commencing on 7 June 2021 and ending on 6 June 2023, in respect of the primary offence of driving at a police officer, for which Mr Seymour has been convicted and sentenced. 9. The Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order be extended to each of the two offences of aggravated dangerous driving, for which Michael Seymour has been convicted and sentenced and which are associated offences of the primary offence. 10. It be noted that convictions for the primary offence and the associated offences have been recorded and that sentences have been imposed for each of them, which convictions and sentences are hereby incorporated into the Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order in the custodial part of the Order. 11. In the custodial part of the Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order, the total sentence of imprisonment for the primary and associated offences be suspended under s 80W of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) until 14 May 2024. 12. Michael Seymour be required to sign an undertaking to comply with the offender’s good behaviour obligations under s…

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 Seymour

Details

AGLC: R v Seymour [2021] ACTSC 152
Case: [2021] ACTSC 152
Decision Date: 7 June 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Seymour involved Michael Seymour who was convicted of several offences including driving at a police officer, aggravated dangerous driving, driving while disqualified, and drug driving. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory. Seymour's legal team challenged the severity of the sentences and the applicability of certain orders. The court was required to decide on the appropriate sentences for each offence, the applicability of a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order, and the concurrent nature of disqualification periods.

The court considered the severity of Seymour's actions, including the deliberate act of driving at a police officer, his repeated dangerous driving while disqualified, and drug driving. The court also evaluated the need for rehabilitation and treatment, given the repeated offences and Seymour's drug dependency. In sentencing, the court imposed custodial sentences for the most serious offences, while also considering Seymour's need for rehabilitation through a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order. The court also ordered that Seymour's disqualification periods be served concurrently.

The Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory found Seymour guilty of all charges. The sentences included imprisonment, fines, and licence disqualifications, with specific conditions for rehabilitation. A Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order was made for two years, starting from 7 June 2021, with conditions for treatment and supervision, including attendance at a therapeutic community. The court also suspended the total sentence of imprisonment until 14 May 2024. Seymour was required to sign an undertaking to comply with good behaviour obligations and accept supervision by ACT Corrective Services.

In conclusion, the court ordered that Michael Seymour be convicted and sentenced for his various offences, with specific sentences for each charge. The court also made a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order for Seymour, requiring him to attend a rehabilitation program and comply with various conditions for treatment and supervision. The court's final orders included the conviction and sentencing, the imposition of a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order, and specific conditions for Seymour's rehabilitation and supervision.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Michael Seymour be convicted of driving at a police officer and be sentenced to 27 months imprisonment, commencing on 16 October 2020 and ending on 15 January 2023.

2. Michael Seymour be convicted of aggravated dangerous driving and be sentenced to 14 months imprisonment, commencing on 16 July 2022 and ending on 15 September 2023, and be disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver licence for 12 months.

3. Michael Seymour be convicted of aggravated dangerous driving and be sentenced to 14 months imprisonment, commencing on 16 March 2023 and ending on 15 May 2024, and be disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver licence for 12 months.

4. Michael Seymour be convicted of drive while disqualified and be required to sign an undertaking to comply with the offender’s good behaviour obligations under s 85 of the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) for a period of 12 months from today, 7 June 2021, and also be disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver licence for 12 months.

5. Michael Seymour be convicted of drug driving and be fined $500 with 12 months to pay, and be disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver licence for 12 months.

6. Michael Seymour’s convicted for drug driving be confirmed, the Good Behaviour Order made in relation to this offence in the Magistrates Court be cancelled, and he be re-sentenced to a fine of $300 with 12 months to pay.

7. It be directed that the multiple disqualification periods relating to holding or obtaining a licence be served concurrently under s 69 of the Road Transport (General) Act 1999 (ACT).

8. A Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order for Michael Seymour be made under s 12A of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) for 2 years from today, commencing on 7 June 2021 and ending on 6 June 2023, in respect of the primary offence of driving at a police officer, for which Mr Seymour has been convicted and sentenced.

9. The Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order be extended to each of the two offences of aggravated dangerous driving, for which Michael Seymour has been convicted and sentenced and which are associated offences of the primary offence.

10. It be noted that convictions for the primary offence and the associated offences have been recorded and that sentences have been imposed for each of them, which convictions and sentences are hereby incorporated into the Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order in the custodial part of the Order.

11. In the custodial part of the Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order, the total sentence of imprisonment for the primary and associated offences be suspended under s 80W of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) until 14 May 2024.

12. Michael Seymour be required to sign an undertaking to comply with the offender’s good behaviour obligations under s 85 of the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) from the end of the Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order, 7 June 2023, until the end of the total sentence, 15 May 2024, with a probation condition that he accept supervision by the Commissioner of ACT Corrective Services or his delegate and obey all reasonable directions of the person supervising him, including as to urinalysis, counselling and treatment.

13. For the treatment and supervision part of the Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order:

(a) The core conditions of the Order set out in s 80Y of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) be hereby imposed;

(b) Michael Seymour attend at Karralika Therapeutic Community, Tuggeranong, from this Court and admit himself to the residential drug rehabilitation program there by 1:00 pm today, 7 June 2021;

(c) Michael Seymour be directed to complete the program at Karralika Therapeutic Community, not leave the program until he has completed it and obey all the rules of the program of the facility and all directions of the person in charge of the program;

(d) Should Michael Seymour leave or be discharged from the facility before completing the program, he report to ACT Corrective Services by 4:00 pm the next business day with the view to having this Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order reviewed;

(e) Michael Seymour be directed to undertake any program, treatment, case management or urinalysis as may be required by any member of the Treatment and Supervision Team; and

(f) Michael Seymour be directed to comply with any directions of the Court from time to time about attendance at Court in person or by electronic means.

14. Michael Seymour appear by electronic means in Court on Friday 18 June 2021 at 12:30 pm.

15. Michael Seymour be directed to attend the Court Registry before he leaves the Court precincts to sign a sealed copy of this Order.

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.

Citations

AGLC Citation

R v Seymour [2021] ACTSC 152

Most Recent Citation

R v Massey (No 3) [2021] ACTSC 156

Cases citing this decision · 22 of 22 shown

Director of Public Prosecutions v Massey
[2025] ACTSC 312

…[1999] NSWCCA 111; 46 NSWLR 346 R v Massey (No 1) [2020] ACTSC 256 R v Massey (No 3) [2021] ACTSC 156 R v Massey (No 4) [2021] ACTSC 211 R v Seymour [2021] ACTSC 152 R v Toumo’ua [2017] ACTCA 9; 12 ACTLR 103…
Director of Public Prosecutions v Swain (a pseudonym) (No 2)
[2025] ACTSC 209

…C 323 R v Pearson [2020] ACTSC 375 R v Robertson [2010] ACTCA 19 R v Rosewarne [2021] ACTSC 217 R v SDM [2001] NSWCCA 158; 51 NSWLR 530 R v Seymour [2021] ACTSC 152 R v Slattery [2021] ACTSC 154 R v Watson [2021] ACTSC 339 R v Wilson [2022] ACTSC 7 R v Winters [2022] ACTSC 371 Sampson v De Haan [2016] ACTSC 327 Tho…
Director of Public Prosecutions v Gill
[2025] ACTSC 124

…184 DPP v Djerke (No 2) [2023] ACTSC 341 R v Crawford (a pseudonym) [2022] ACTSC 166 R v Rowlands (No 2); DPP v Rowlands [2024] ACTSC 143 R v Seymour [2021] ACTSC 152…
Director of Public Prosecutions v Loiterton
[2025] ACTSC 59

…v De Simoni (1981) 147 CLR 383 R v Gatica [2020] ACTSC 22 R v Ngata [2015] ACTSC 356 R v Rowlands (No 2); DPP v Rowlands [2024] ACTSC 143 R v Seymour [2021] ACTSC 152 R v Verdins [2007] VSCA 102; 16 VR 269…
Director of Public Prosecutions v Coulter
[2024] ACTSC 262

…CA 381; 167 A Crim R 159 R v Millwood [2012] NSWCCA 2 R v Rosewarne [2021] ACTSC 217 R v Rowlands (No 2); DPP v Rowlands [2024] ACTSC 143 R v Seymour [2021] ACTSC 152 R v Toumo'ua [2017] ACTCA 9; 12 ACTLR 103 R v Tran [1999] NSWCCA 109 R v UG [2020] ACTCA 8 R v Williams [2017] ACTSC 298 Smith v The Queen [2011] NSW…
R v Rowlands (No 2); Director of Public Prosecutions v Rowlands
[2024] ACTSC 143 Para 2

…imposed are informative as to current sentencing practice for those offences. In determining those sentences, Refshauge AJ had regard to R v Seymour [2021] ACTSC 152 and R v Crawford (a pseudonym) [2022] ACTSC 166, which I have also considered.…
DPP v Druett
[2024] ACTSC 56

…018] ACTSC 261 R v Carpenter [2022] ACTSC 6 R v Crawford [2022] ACTSC 166 R v Irwin [2019] NSWCCA 133 R v Pham [2015] HCA 39; 256 CLR 550 R v Seymour [2021] ACTSC 152 R v Tran [1999] NSWCCA 109 R v Van Ryn [2016] NSWCCA 1 Smith v The Queen [2011] NSWCCA 163…
R v Po'oi (No 6); Director of Public Prosecutions v Po'oi
[2024] ACTSC 6

…TSC 198 R v Po’oi (No 5) [2023] ACTSC 413 R v Porter (No 3) [2022] ACTSC 236 R v Ridley [2014] ACTSC 382 R v Rosewarne [2021] ACTSC 217 R v Seymour [2021] ACTSC 152 R v Subasic (No 2) [2023] ACTSC 79 R v Swift [2007] VSCA 52; 15 VR 497 R v Tonna (No 2) [2020] ACTSC 362 R v Ware [2016] ACTSC 264 R v Weldon [2021] AC…
Director of Public Prosecutions v Crawford (a pseudonym)
[2023] ACTSC 266

…(No 3) [2021] ACTSC 156 R v McColl [2022] ACTSC 386 R v Mills [1998] 4 VR 235 R v Pham (2015) 256 CLR 550 R v Rosewarne [2021] ACTSC 217 R v Seymour [2021] ACTSC 152 R v Sullivan (No 2) [2020] ACTSC 215 R v TL [2017] ACTCA 18 R v Toumo’ua [2017] ACTCA 9 R v Tran [1999] NSWCCA 109 R v Van Rysewyk [2008] NSWCCA 130…
Director of Public Prosecutions v Clarke (No 2)
[2023] ACTSC 261

…LR 256 R v Knight (2005) 155 A Crim R R v Law [2021] ACTSC 351 R v MAK [2006] NSWCCA 381; 167 A Crim R 159 R v Rosewarne [2021] ACTSC 217 R v Seymour [2021] ACTSC 152 R v Toumo’ua [2017] ACTCA 9 R v Tran [1999] NSWCCA 109 R v Van Rysewyk [2008] NSWCCA 130 R v Way (2004) 60 NSWLR 168 Smith v The Queen [2011] NSWCCA…
Director of Public Prosecutions v Allred
[2023] ACTSC 184

…021] ACTSC 351 R v Massey (No 3) [2021] ACTSC 156 R v McHughes [2021] ACTSC 92 R v Po’oi [2021] ACTSC 151 R v Rosewarne [2021] ACTSC 21 R v Seymour [2021] ACTSC 152 R v Williams [2012] ACTSC 288…
Director of Public Prosecutions v Holder (No 2)
[2023] ACTSC 167

…5 June 2023) R v Guy [2022] ACTSC 373 R v Law [2021] ACTSC 351 R v MAK [2006] NSWCCA 381; 167 A Crim R 159 R v Rosewarne [2021] ACTSC 217 R v Seymour [2021] ACTSC 152 R v Verdins [2007] VSCA 102; 16 VR 269 R v Williams [2017] ACTSC 298…
Mann v Tremethick (No 2)
[2023] ACTSC 31

…15] ACTSC 325; 300 FLR 302 R v Abbott [2007] VSCA 32; 170 A Crim R 306 R v Collins [2019] ACTSC 302 R v Goolagong (No 2) [2021] ACTSC 131 R v Seymour [2021] ACTSC 152 R v Verdins [2007] VSCA 62; 16 VR 269 Thorn v Laidlaw [2005] ACTCA 49 Veen v The Queen (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465…
R v Guy
[2022] ACTSC 373 Para 1

…In R v Seymour [2021] ACTSC 152 at [1] the Court said: One of the great advances in civilisation is the facilitation of transport in a speedier and more flexible way. Nothing exemplifies this perhaps more than the motor vehicle, which has liberated many in so many ways. As with any progress, there are risks and opp…
R v Burge
[2022] ACTSC 376 Para 1

…riving and distance travelled were, it was accepted, short. The area was built up, which does make the offence somewhat more serious (see R v Seymour [2021] ACTSC 152 at [41]).…
R v Bonfield
[2021] ACTSC 362 Para 1

…tor as it shows a betrayal of the privilege that the offender has in being in the community on condition he or she does not offend: see R v Seymour [2021] ACTSC 152 at [81]. This means that the sentence must be more serious as a result, though care must be taken to avoid double punishment: R v Carmody [2016] ACTSC…
R v George
[2021] ACTSC 361

…2016] HCA 48; 259 CLR 256 R v Mathews [2020] ACTSC 364 R v McHughes (No 3) [2021] ACTSC 344 R v Molina (1984) 2 FCR 508 R v Seymour [2021] ACTSC 152 R v Slattery [2020] ACTSC 154 R v Toumo’ua [2017] ACTCA 9; 12 ACTLR 103 R v Valentini (1989) 46 A Crim R 23 R v Verdins [2007] VSCA 102; 16 VR 269 Ross v The Queen [20…
R v Chatfield
[2021] ACTSC 352 Para 1

…On the other hand, rather like many other things of great value to human society, such as independent transport (see R v Seymour [2021] ACTSC 152 at [1]–[2]), there are risks and opportunities for misuse. As we know only too well in Australia, fire can deliver great destruction and, of course, death, as Australia h…
R v Law
[2021] ACTSC 351 Para 1

…thal weapon. We only have to consider the road toll. Motor vehicles are, of course, a great contribution to civilisation, as explained in R v Seymour [2021] ACTSC 152 at [1], but these two considerations need careful balancing; hence, the need for regulation. As a result, the sentencing for traffic offences attract…
R v Donnelly
[2021] ACTSC 336

…4 R v McGrail [2016] ACTSC 141 R v McMahon [2014] ACTSC 280 R v Ponfield [1999] NSWCCA 435; 48 NSWLR 327 R v Roux (No 2) [2015] ACTSC 361 R v Seymour [2021] ACTSC 152 R v Sladic [2014] ACTSC 56 R v Steen [2015] ACTSC 259 R v Ware [2016] ACTSC 264 R v Williams [2015] ACTSC 15 ST v The Queen [2017] NSWCCA 245 TM v Ka…
R v Massey (No 3)
[2021] ACTSC 156

…C 364 R v McCusker [2015] QCA 179 R v McHughes [2021] ACTSC 92 R v Ngerengere (No 3) [2016] ACTSC 299 R v Pham [2015] HCA 39; 256 CLR 550 R v Seymour [2021] ACTSC 152 R v Slattery [2021] ACTSC 154 R v Steen [2015] ACTSC 259 R v Taylor [2015] ACTSC 122 R v Tonna (No 1) [2020] ACTSC 360 R v Tonna (No 2) [2020] ACTSC…
Police v Axl Joseph (a pseudonym)
[2023] ACTCC 1

…CTSC 256 R v Massey (No 3) [2021] ACTSC 156 R v MJR [2010] NSWSC 653 R v Ogle (No 2) [2018] ACTSC 126 R v Seymour [2021] ACTSC 152 R v Verdins (2007) 16 VR 269 R v Whyte [2002] NSWCCA 343 The Queen v Haven (a pseudonym) [2022] ACTCA 61 Texts Cited: Bugmy Bar Book Project Committee, Bugmy Bar Book (November 2019) Pa…

View all 22 citing cases →

Cases cited in this decision · 19 of 19 shown

R v McHughes
[2021] ACTSC 92 Para 1

…e committal, the Magistrate ordered that the defendant undergo Eligibility Assessments for the Suitability Assessments (as to which, see R v McHughes [2021] ACTSC 92 at [7]) and on 16 April 2021, Suitability Assessments were ordered by this Court and a date for sentence was set. Mr Seymour has remained in custody.…
R v Mathews
[2020] ACTSC 364 Para 1

…The first is that the breach constitutes an aggravating feature that I must take into account when sentencing: see R v Mathews [2020] ACTSC 364 at [37]-[38]. The abuse of trust to be in the community, that the breach constitutes, is relevant to the severity of the sentence to be imposed, as well as to the assessmen…
Director of Public Prosecutions v Richardson
[2020] VCC 1886 Para 1

…ment (but for a rolled-up charge encompassing two police officers on two occasions) have been imposed: DPP v Guruge [2019] VCC 2015, DPP v Richardson [2020] VCC 1886, DPP v Kovac [2020] VCC 1424, and Jaeger v The Queen [2020] VSCA 116. The penalty for an intentional offence in Victoria is more severe than the ACT…
Director of Public Prosecutions v Shannon
[2020] VCC 1918 Para 1

…one month imprisonment ora Community Corrections Order for three years have been imposed: DPP v Masci & Anor [2019] VCC 2191 at [117], DPP v Shannon [2020] VCC 1918 at [37]. For an aggravated reckless offence, a sentence of three years imprisonment has been imposed: Nelson v The Queen [2020] VSCA 219 at [43].…
Director of Public Prosecutions v Kovac
[2020] VCC 1424 Para 1

…rge encompassing two police officers on two occasions) have been imposed: DPP v Guruge [2019] VCC 2015, DPP v Richardson [2020] VCC 1886, DPP v Kovac [2020] VCC 1424, and Jaeger v The Queen [2020] VSCA 116. The penalty for an intentional offence in Victoria is more severe than the ACT offence penalty, which is, in…
R v Crawford (No 1)
[2020] ACTSC 245 Para 1

…t now be partially suspended, this does not prevent Mr Seymour from being subject to a Treatment Order for the reasons set out in R v Crawford (No 1) [2020] ACTSC 245 at [91]-[111].…
Nelson v The Queen
[2020] VSCA 219 Para 1

…PP v Shannon [2020] VCC 1918 at [37]. For an aggravated reckless offence, a sentence of three years imprisonment has been imposed: Nelson v The Queen [2020] VSCA 219 at [43].…
Matthew Jaeger v The Queen
[2020] VSCA 116 Para 1

…two occasions) have been imposed: DPP v Guruge [2019] VCC 2015, DPP v Richardson [2020] VCC 1886, DPP v Kovac [2020] VCC 1424, and Jaeger v The Queen [2020] VSCA 116. The penalty for an intentional offence in Victoria is more severe than the ACT offence penalty, which is, in itself, more severe than the reckless o…
Director of Public Prosecutions v Masci
[2019] VCC 2191 Para 1

…reckless exposure to risk, sentences of one month imprisonment ora Community Corrections Order for three years have been imposed: DPP v Masci & Anor [2019] VCC 2191 at [117], DPP v Shannon [2020] VCC 1918 at [37]. For an aggravated reckless offence, a sentence of three years imprisonment has been imposed: Nelson…
DPP v Guruge
[2019] VCC 2015 Para 1

…imprisonment, five years imprisonment (but for a rolled-up charge encompassing two police officers on two occasions) have been imposed: DPP v Guruge [2019] VCC 2015, DPP v Richardson [2020] VCC 1886, DPP v Kovac [2020] VCC 1424, and Jaeger v The Queen [2020] VSCA 116. The penalty for an intentional offence in Vic…
R v It
[2017] ACTSC 271 Para 1

…Mr Seymour had no passengers, which would have aggravated the offence, but he did not stop when clearly signalled by police to do so: R v IT [2017] ACTSC 271 at [27]. It was also a matter of aggravation that Mr Seymour was driving after he had consumed drugs.…
R v Williams
[2017] ACTSC 298 Para 1

…e some of the areas through which Mr Seymour drove were built up residential areas, a significant number were not and that is relevant ( R v Williams [2017] ACTSC 298 at [67]), with no evidence of any other road users attracting a less serious penalty.…
Coggan v The Queen
[2013] ACTCA 49 Para 1

…While the discount must be moderated where the prosecution case is overwhelmingly strong (s 35(4) of the Sentencing Act ), Coggin v The Queen [2013] ACTCA 49 at [14]-[21] makes it clear that it has, nevertheless, a distinct utilitarian value.…
Muldrock v The Queen
[2011] HCA 39 Para 1

…e legislation, as it is mandated by the legislature and ‘serves as an indicator of the relative seriousness of the offence’: Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39; 244 CLR 120 at 133; [31].…
Hogan v Hinch
[2011] HCA 4 Para 1

…ilitation of Mr Seymour is important. Not only is it the surest form of protection of the community, it is also in the public interest: Hogan v Hinch [2011] HCA 4; 243 CLR 506 at 537; [32]. In this case, Mr Seymour seems a good prospect for rehabilitation, given his history and the fact that he has an opportuni…
Kennewell v Rand
[2005] ACTSC 89 Para 1

…v Whyte [ 2002] NSWCCA 343; 55 NSWLR 252 at 286; [216]-[218], accepted as having suitability for that purpose in this jurisdiction: Kennewell v Rand [2005] ACTSC 89. However, the offence itself in that case is a very different one. In this case, there were, apart from the police officers, no other road users, eit…
Cotter v Corvisy
[2008] ACTSC 64 Para 1

…prior to this offending. This would suggest that the offence was a contumacious one, especially as he had no reason for driving: see Cotter v Corvisy [2008] ACTSC 64 at [38]-[39]. The nature of the driving is also relevant, but care must be exercised to prevent double punishment since the manner of driving is alre…
R v Whyte
[2006] NSWCCA 75 Para 1

…Some useful factors are identified in the New South Wales decision of R v Whyte [ 2002] NSWCCA 343; 55 NSWLR 252 at 286; [216]-[218], accepted as having suitability for that purpose in this jurisdiction: Kennewell v Rand [2005] ACTSC 89. However, the offence itself in that case is a very different one. In this…
R v Henry
[1999] NSWCCA 111 Para 1

…ilst that is not an excuse in itself, that he started using drugs as a young child and soon became dependent does moderate his culpability: R v Henry [1999] NSWCCA 111; 46 NSWCR 364 at 397-398; [273].…

Legislation cited in this decision · 8

Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT)
10, 12A, 33(1)(za), 35, 46J, 6, 7, 80W,... 11 mentions (from Para 1)
Road Transport (Alcohol and Drugs) Act 1977 (ACT)
13A, 20(1), 8 4 mentions (from Para 1)
Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT)
108, 86(10(a)(i) 3 mentions (from Para 1)
Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Act 1999 (ACT)
7, 7A 3 mentions (from Para 1)
Crimes Act 1900 (ACT)
29A 2 mentions (from Para 1)
Road Transport (Driver Licensing) Act 1999 (ACT)
32(1)(a) 2 mentions (from Para 1)
Road Transport (General) Act 1999 (ACT)
69 2 mentions (from Para 1)
Crimes Act 1958 (Vic)
1 mention (from Para 1)