RHYS WILKINS v CATHERINE ELLEN HAGUE AND LANE ALAN BRIAN
[2011] ACTSC 189 (22 November 2011)
APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – in general and right of appeal – appeal from Magistrates Court – appeal against conviction and sentences – appeal against conviction dismissed – appeal against sentence upheld.
CRIMINAL LAW – particular offences – driving offences – negligent driving causing death – whether driver keeping a proper lookout – duty to cyclists sharing carriageway.
CRIMINAL LAW – jurisdiction, practice and procedure – judgment and punishment – driving whilst disqualified – whether sentence manifestly excessive.
CRIMINAL LAW – jurisdiction, practice and procedure – judgment and punishment – cancellation of Good Behaviour Order made when sentence of imprisonment suspended – re-sentencing – whether more severe sentence may be imposed.
Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Act 1999 (ACT), s 6
Road Transport (Driver Licensing) Act 1999 (ACT), s 32
Road Transport (Vehicle Registration) Act 1999 (ACT), s 18
Road Transport (Third-Party Insurance) Act 2008 (ACT), s 17
Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT), Div 3.10.2
Road Traffic Act 1960 (UK), s 1
Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), s 29
Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT), s 110
Justices Act 1959 (Tas), s 74C
Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT), s 25
Sentencing Act 1997 (Tas), s 27
Australian Road Rules 1999, r 141
Hanel v Shoemark [2010] ACTSC 67
Cooper v Corvisy (No 2) (2010) 5 ACTLR 151
R v Antoniazzo [2010] ACTSC 36
R v Hennigan [1971] 3 All ER 133
R v Williams [2011] 3 All ER 969
R v Gosney [1971] 2 QB 674
R v Webb [1986] 2 Qd R 446
R v Pettman [2007] QCA 233
R v Buttsworth [1983] 1 NSWLR 658
Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) v Yeo [2008] NSWSC 953
Simpson v Peat [1952] 2 QB 24
Kitson v R (1987) 5 MVR 228
H Mcl v The Queen (2000) 203 CLR 452
R v Gilmore (1979) 1 A Crim R 416
Greaves v Smith (TASSC, 1986, Neasey J, unreported serial No 52)
Taylor v Bowden [2009] ACTSC 13
Saga v Reid & Collett [2010] ACTSC 59
Director of Public Prosecutions v Cookeand Anor (2007) 168 A Crim R 379
Pantorno v The Queen (1989) 166 CLR 466
Parker v Director of Public Prosecutions and Anor (1992) 28 NSWLR 282
R v Campbell [2010] ACTCA 20
R v Clinch (1994) 72 A Crim R 301
Cotter v Corvisy (2008) 1 ACTLR 299
Coombe v Douris (1987) 47 SASR 324
ON APPEAL FROM THE MAGISTRATES COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
No. SCA 80 of 2011
Judge: Refshauge J
Supreme Court of the ACT
Date: 22 November 2011
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE )
) No. SCA 80 of 2011
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY )
ON APPEAL FROM THE MAGISTRATES COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
BETWEEN:RHYS WILKINS
Appellant
AND: CATHERINE ELLEN HAGUE
AND: LANE ALAN BRIAN
Respondents
ORDER
Judge: Refshauge J
Date: 22 November 2011
Place: Canberra
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
The appeal…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Wilkins v Hague and Brian and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2011] ACTSC 189
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court had to determine whether Wilkins was negligent in his driving, specifically if he failed to keep a proper lookout for the cyclist. The court also needed to consider whether the sentence for driving whilst disqualified was manifestly excessive and if a more severe sentence could be imposed during the re-sentencing process. Additionally, the court had to decide on the legality of cancelling the Good Behaviour Order made when the sentence of imprisonment was suspended.
The appeal against the conviction was dismissed as the evidence supported the Magistrates Court's finding of negligence. However, the appeal against the sentence was upheld. The original sentence was deemed manifestly excessive, and the court imposed a more severe sentence during the re-sentencing. The cancellation of the Good Behaviour Order was also deemed lawful under the circumstances. The court's final order was that the appeal against the conviction be dismissed, but the appeal against the sentence was upheld, leading to a re-sentencing process.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
The appeal against conviction be dismissed.
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.