R v Seymour [2021] ACTSC 152

[2021] ACTSC 152

Supreme Court of the ACT|2021-06-07|Before: Refshauge J

View on the ACT Courts

At a glance

Source facts

Court

Supreme Court of the ACT

Decision date

2021-06-07

Before

Refshauge J

Catchwords

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION,
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence –
driving at a police officer
– drug driving – aggravated dangerous

Source

Original judgment source is linked above.

Catchwords

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION,PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence –driving at a police officer– drug driving – aggravated dangerousdriving – licence disqualified – Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order–Rehabilitation

Judgment

Source: the ACT Courts (www.courts.act.gov.au). Converted to plain text by ZoeLaw. Not the official version.

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY Case Title: R v Seymour

Citation: [2021] ACTSC 152

Hearing Date(s): 28 May 2021

Decision Date: 7 June 2021

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

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.
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.
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.

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 opportunities for misuse. Such is clearly evident with the motor car. It can be used to facilitate crime and it can cause great injury, even death, thus rendering it able to be used, in effect, as a weapon. Laws and rules have been made to minimise the abuse of the use of a motor vehicle.
Thus, today appearing before me for sentence is Michael Seymour, who has pleaded guilty to offences of driving at police, aggravated dangerous driving on two occasions, driving whilst disqualified as a first offender, and driving with a prescribed drug in his blood as a repeat offender.
The Crown prepared its usual invaluable Crown Tender Bundle. It was tendered without objection and I admitted it. A Victim Impact Statement was also admitted. Ms E Wallis, who appeared for Mr Seymour, tendered a letter from Mr Seymour, a Defence Tender Bundle and an aerial map of Bindubi Street, Aranda. There was no objection to the tender of any of this material and I admitted it.
In the Crown Tender Bundle was the relevant committal and transfer documentation, an Agreed Statement of Facts, Mr Seymour's Criminal History, Victim Impact Statements and a Statement of Facts relating to a breach of a Good Behaviour Order. In addition, it contained a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Assessment from ACT Corrective Services, dated 13 May 2021, and a Drug and Alcohol Sentencing List Suitability Assessment and Case Plan of the Alcohol and Drug Services of Canberra Health Services, dated 20 May 2021, both of which assessments were the Drug and Alcohol Suitability Assessments (the Suitability Assessments) mentioned under s 46J of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) (the Sentencing Act).
In the Defence Tender Bundle was a Pre-Sentence Report dated 12 March 2020, two character references, a letter confirming Mr Seymour’s attendance at and participant in the Education & Training program at the Alexander Maconochie Centre and certificates of completion of courses undertaken by Mr Seymour.
I was also much assisted by targeted, helpful and thoughtful written submissions from both counsel. The content of none of the admitted material was the subject of any challenge. I heard the Victim Impact Statement read aloud in Court by the victim and Mr Seymour gave oral evidence before me. I rely on what I there heard.
I relied on all of this evidence and submissions to make the following findings.

On 16 October 2020, at about 12:30 am, Mr Seymour was driving a silver Ford station wagon in an easterly direction along Southern Cross Drive, Holt, ACT. The weather was dry and, though it was dark, the road at the intersection with Kingsford Smith Drive was well lit.
As Mr Seymour turned his vehicle right into Kingsford Smith Drive, the vehicle came to the attention of Constable David Colvin who was driving a fully marked police car in the opposite direction. Constable Colvin made a U-turn and followed Mr Seymour's vehicle, activating the lights and sirens of the police car in an attempt to have Mr Seymour stop his vehicle. Instead of stopping, however, Mr Seymour made a U-turn himself and sped away in a westerly direction on Southern Cross Drive, travelling at approximately 107 kilometres per hour in what was signposted as an area of road with a maximum speed limit of 60 kilometres per hour.
Constable Colvin turned his vehicle again and commenced his pursuit of Mr Seymour's vehicle. Mr Seymour kept driving his vehicle away, travelling at times on the incorrect side of the road and then returning to the correct side of the road. He turned into O’Reilly Street, Macgregor, then into Osburn Drive and then Florey Street, reaching speeds of 112 kilometres an hour on Osburn Drive, in a posted speed limit area of 60 kilometres per hour, and 90 kilometres per hour on O’Reilly Street, in the posted speed limit area of 50 kilometres per hour.
Mr Seymour then turned his vehicle back onto Southern Cross Drive, reaching a speed of 170 kilometres per hour in a posted speed zone of 80 kilometres per hour and maintained that speed for about 5.5 kilometres before crossing onto the incorrect side of the road and turning into Coulter Drive, Belconnen. Constable Colvin discontinued the pursuit at 12:43 am. These facts constituted the first offence of aggravated dangerous driving.
It appears that Mr Seymour drove the vehicle into Redfern Street, Macquarie, for at 12:43 am, Senior Constable Paul Robens, who was riding a fully marked police motorcycle, sighted the vehicle. Mr Seymour’s vehicle was travelling about 10 kilometres above the posted speed limit of 60 kilometres per hour and did not have the headlights or taillights on the vehicle illuminated. Senior Constable Robens turned his motorcycle around so that he was behind Mr Seymour's vehicle, but Mr Seymour accelerated the vehicle away, blowing smoke from the exhaust of the vehicle. Senior Constable Robens accelerated to follow the vehicle.
At the traffic island where Bindubi Street ceases to be a divided road, Mr Seymour effected a 'handbrake turn', turning his vehicle 180 degrees, facing north, against the flow of traffic. He illuminated his headlights and accelerated towards Senior Constable Robens who was travelling in a different lane. At about 50 metres from Senior Constable Robens' motorcycle, Mr Seymour caused his vehicle to make an abrupt lane change and accelerate directly towards Senior Constable Robens travelling in that lane, forcing him to drive onto the median strip to avoid a collision. Senior Constable Robens estimated that the vehicle came within 5 metres of his motorcycle. These were the events that founded the offence of driving a motor vehicle at police.
Mr Seymour continued to drive his vehicle down Bindubi Street. Senior Constable Robens turned his motorcycle around and followed Mr Seymour. There was no other traffic on the road at that time. Senior Constable Robens activated his lights and sirens in a further attempt to have Mr Seymour stop his vehicle, but Mr Seymour did not do so. Instead, he sped away at about 140 kilometres per hour in an area posted with an 80 kilometre per hour speed limit.
Mr Seymour then performed a further 'handbrake turn' to face Senior Constable Robens, locking the vehicle's wheels so that the vehicle slid along the roadway past the front of Senior Constable Robens motorcycle. Mr Seymour's vehicle emitted a large amount of black smoke from the exhaust and lighter blue smoke from the vehicle itself. Senior Constable Robens then terminated the pursuit shortly afterwards. As Mr Seymour's vehicle sped away, he again drove on the incorrect side of the road before colliding with a guardrail and coming to a stop. Mr Seymour then ran from the vehicle. These were the incidents that comprised the second offence of aggravated dangerous driving.
About five minutes later, police located Mr Seymour's vehicle where it had collided with the guardrail and, shortly after that, located Mr Seymour swimming in the Molonglo River nearby, adjacent to the crash. They persuaded him to come out of the water and he identified himself and was treated by ACT Ambulance Service paramedics.
Forensic analysis of the car confirmed that Mr Seymour's DNA was found in the car. Mr Seymour's driver licence had been cancelled in the ACT Magistrates Court on 18 September 2020 for 12 months. This founded the charge of driving whilst disqualified.
Police also subjected Mr Seymour to a blood test, which was positive for methylamphetamine. This justified the charge of driving with a prescribed drug in his blood.

Strict liability applies to element 29A(1)(c) and the section additionally provides for a presumption to be drawn from the presence of certain matters that the defendant knew the person was a police officer, such as that the person identified themselves as such, or were in a vehicle that stated ‘Police’ on the outside, or it was reasonably apparent that the vehicle was being used for the exercise of police functions, or it was otherwise reasonably apparent that the person was a police officer.
It is not necessary for the offender's driving to have actually injured the police officer.
The offence is based on similar offences created by div 8A of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic), though it is in somewhat different terms. Those offences, however, include one where the offence is intentionally committed, where the maximum sentence is 20 years imprisonment; one where it is aggravated where the car being driven is stolen or where the offence is committed in connection with an offence of damaging an emergency services vehicle, where the maximum sentence is also 20 years imprisonment; and another where the offence is recklessly committed, where the maximum penalty is 10 years imprisonment.
The offence appears to have been inserted in the Victorian Crimes Act in 2017. It covers all emergency service workers and some others, not only police. There are a few sentences that have been imposed for this offence so far, but, as yet, there is not much jurisprudence about the relevant factors that aggravate or mitigate an offence.
As to the offence relating to 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 v The Queen [2020] VSCA 219 at [43].
As to the offence relating to intentional exposure to risk, sentences of 12 months imprisonment, three years 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 Victoria is more severe than the ACT offence penalty, which is, in itself, more severe than the reckless offence in Victoria even though the ACT offence covers both circumstances.
Reviewing the Court of Appeal decision in Jaeger v The Queen, where the Court adopted the views of the learned sentencing judge, indicates some relevant factors. Thus, actually causing damage to a police vehicle, in which police are driving or located, is an aggravating factor, as is whether the offender is engaged in a police pursuit. That, of course, is relevant here. The fact that the offence occurs in a busy locality is aggravating, as is engaging in highly dangerous behaviour. The intention to impede arrest is similarly an aggravating feature, especially if without regard to the welfare or safety of the victims or of the community at large.
The law is designed to protect police officers who are, in the course of their duty, executing their duties on ACT roads, and to make it clear to the community that such conduct is entirely unacceptable. Police officers carry out difficult work in circumstances where they are often dealing with challenging behaviour of members of the public, and yet their work is for the benefit, safety and welfare of the entire community. It is reasonable for them to feel vindicated when their safety is intentionally jeopardised: see DPP v Guruge at [28].
In this case, Mr Seymour was engaged in a police pursuit, his second that night. Senior Constable Robens was on a motorcycle, which exposed him to significantly more danger than were he to have been in a car. Mr Seymour had been driving at highly dangerous, excessive speeds. He drove directly at Senior Constable Robens. While there was no contact between Mr Seymour’s car and Senior Constable Robens’ motorcycle, that was largely due to the skilful driving of Senior Constable Robens, a characteristic that, of course, would be expected of a fully trained police officer on a motorcycle. These were aggravating features.
Nevertheless, there were no physical injuries caused and it would have been more serious had Senior Constable Robens been on foot (Nelson v The Queen at [27]). There were no other road users in the vicinity or on Bindubi Street and there were no houses nor footpaths bordering the road which would have been relevant (DPP v Shannon at [32]). There were no passengers in Mr Seymour's vehicle, which has also been held to aggravate an offence (DPP v Richardson at [59]).
Aggravated dangerous driving is an offence contrary to s 7(1) of the Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Act 1999 (ACT) and by virtue of s 7A, aggravated as here renders Mr Seymour liable to a maximum penalty of three years imprisonment, or a fine of $48,000, or both. In addition, he is to be disqualified from obtaining or holding a driver licence for 12 months, or any longer period that the Court orders.
Obviously, this is a serious offence because of the risk to which it exposes other road users. Even one person is too many to be exposed to risk, but clearly the more persons exposed, the more serious the offence.
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 case, there were, apart from the police officers, no other road users, either motorists or pedestrians, in the places where Mr Seymour drove.
The period of driving and the distance travelled are important. Here there was some distance travelled in each police pursuit, though the whole incident, from 12:30 am when Constable Colvin first sighted Mr Seymour's vehicle to 12:48 am when police found the abandoned vehicle and Mr Seymour swimming in the Molonglo River, is some 18 minutes. While 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.
An aggravating factor was the speeds at which Mr Seymour drove, well above the speed limit for much of the time. It was also dangerous, but potentially primarily because of the absence of other road users, to drive on the incorrect side of the road. Of course, Mr Seymour was not to know that another driver would not appear when he was on the incorrect side of the road.
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.
The offence of driving whilst disqualified as a first offender is prohibited by s 32(1)(a) of the Road Transport (Driver Licensing) Act 1999 (ACT), which specifies a maximum penalty of 6 months imprisonment, or a fine of $8,000, or both, and a mandatory licence disqualification of 12 months or longer if the Court so specifies.
Mr Seymour was disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver licence on 18 September 2020, less than one month 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 already the subject of other charges.
Section 20(1) of the Road Transport (Alcohol and Drugs) Act 1977 (ACT) makes driving with a prescribed drug in the blood an offence and specifies a maximum penalty of three months imprisonment, or a fine of $4,000, or both. There is little that can be said about this offence. The distance travelled is relevant. It is important here, too, not to engage in double punishment.

Mr Seymour was born in 1992, the youngest of his parents' four children. As a child, he witnessed family violence inflicted by his father, who was a heavy drinker and in and out of jail. He was not infrequently the victim of his father's brutality. Finally, his mother relocated to Bundaberg when he was about eight years old.
Mr Seymour continues to have good relationships with two of his siblings, though he has not had regular contact with them for some time, and especially continues to have a good relationship with his mother, whom he describes as his ‘rock’.
He attended school but was always in trouble. He completed Year 10. He then commenced employment as a boilermaker, but could not obtain formal qualifications. His longest period of continuous employment was for five years. He also worked as a cook and fruit picking. He is said to have an excellent work ethic and has been regularly employed in a variety of unskilled jobs. He worked hard to earn enough for the purchase of a home. He has, however, a bit of an anti-authoritarian streak, disliking being ‘ordered’ what to do.
Mr Seymour had a relationship from which he has two children, but he and his partner are no longer together as a result of her infidelity. The children live with their mother in Bundaberg. Mr Seymour has regular contact with his ex-partner, but last saw his children some years ago although he does contact them once a week via Facebook.
He has a current partner who has a young daughter, but the relationship was only a few months old when he was incarcerated.
Mr Seymour has no current physical health concerns. He has been diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder and was prescribed medication as a child, but ceased its use after two years.
Mr Seymour has a long history of drug use, starting from an early age. He commenced using alcohol at an early age, probably as a toddler, but it is unclear precisely when it was. Both his parents contributed to this. He consumed regularly for about five years in his early 20s, but reduced as he replaced it with the use of illicit drugs. He now drinks only socially.
He first used cannabis when he was about 13 years old and used regularly until he was 16 years old, when he transitioned to other drugs. He has continued to smoke some cannabis, last using in 2020.
He first used OxyContin when he was 16 years old and continued until he was 18 years old. It was easily available and he used once or twice a week. He found it helped him ‘come down’. He also used liquid morphine during this time, using it intravenously about 20 times a year.
He used MDMA/Ecstasy first when he was 16 years old and continued to use ‘on and off’ for years, last using in 2020.
He has also used cocaine from age 17, but only about twice a year. He last used about two months before he was arrested for these offences.
At age 18, he commenced using heroin, which he continues to use every two to three days, about two thirds to half a gram.
At age 22, he used liquid acid, recalling that he used daily for a year. He found it ‘fun’ and it was, for a time, his favourite drug.
His first use of amphetamine was when he was 16 years old, and he started to use it regularly after a couple of years. He uses two or three points about once a month, last using in 2020.
At age 18, he commenced using methamphetamine. He was using regularly by the time he was in his mid-20s. He thinks about the drug regularly and feels that it provides him with fun. Before his most recent incarceration, he was intravenously consuming about a half to three and a half grams daily.
Mr Seymour reported remaining substance free from 2012 to 2017. He has no criminal offences recorded against him during that period. He says that his resumption of drug use was the result of his relationship ending. He also lost an uncle and he had never experienced grief before.
Mr Seymour says that he has not used illicit drugs since January 2021, though he has been in custody since then. He has not had any alcohol or other drug treatment or rehabilitation.
Mr Seymour is described as presently subject to a severe substance use disorder.
He has expressed remorse about his offending and in the witness box he expressed an apology to Senior Constable Robens.
He has a criminal history in Queensland, New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory. [Redacted for legal reasons].
As an adult, he has a total of 27 offences on his record, mostly related to drugs and dishonesty, which is often drug related. Interestingly, there are no traffic offences of the kind that he is now facing. He has some violence offences, including possessing weapons and knives, assault occasioning actual bodily harm and contravening a domestic violence order. While a serious and concerning record, it is, for a 29 year old man, indicative of some hope, perhaps, for reform.
I had three references written for him, from his mother, from the mother of his third son, and from a trainer and assessor at the Alexander Maconochie Centre.
His mother recounted how he had worked after leaving school, saving enough for a deposit and a mortgage for his first house which he purchased in 2014. She recognised that he was ‘no angel’, but describes him as ‘a decent person’. He is, she says, an active crusader against animal cruelty and that he helped others evacuate after the 2013 floods in Queensland. She says that he has re-evaluated his life and wants to move forward, away from his current drug using and lifestyle.
The mother of his third son describes him as a contributor to society. He is, she says, a good worker. He has told her that he intends to reconnect with her and that he recognises how harmful illicit drug use has been for him. He expressed a wish to reform. He is, she says, good to her father and to her and she will support him.
The trainer from the Alexander Maconochie Centre attests to the units Mr Seymour has completed, largely being job related. She says that he possesses average literacy and numeracy skills, but sufficient for him to participate in vocational education training. She describes him as showing a keen interest in learning new skills and has demonstrated ‘an engaging attitude in class’. Certificates provided by Mr Seymour show the completion of personal development courses, including: Keeping Myself Well, Conflict Resolution, Introduction to Recovery, Self Esteem, Goal Setting, and Better Health Choices.
In his evidence to me, Mr Seymour explained that he had been honest in discussions of his past with the authors of the Suitability Assessments. He confirmed that he was committed to rehabilitation. He also wants to reconnect with his children and have them in his life. He repeated much of that in his letter to the Court. He described himself as ‘not a bad person. I've lost my way throughout life. I have had my ups and downs with drug use.’ He wishes to be part of the life of all his children and an active role model.
He explained that, on the night of his offending, he had been homeless and staying in his car because of his drug use. He accepted full responsibility for his actions and said that he regretted them immensely. He noted that he had, since being in custody, attended education twice and had been getting fit. He also apologised directly to Senior Constable Robens, the victim of his most serious offence.

Part 4.3 of the Sentencing Act is an important provision which has the effect of enabling the victim of a crime to have, by right, a formal part in the criminal justice system. It is valuable to the victim to give him or her a voice that is to be heard by right. It is valuable to the Court, which is much better informed of the actual harm suffered by a victim. It is even valuable to an offender, though many may not accept that, for confronting them with the reality of the human consequences of their crime.
Senior Constable Robens took the opportunity to make a Victim Impact Statement. He also took the statutorily allowed opportunity to read this Statement out to the Court. This had the important merit of ensuring that Mr Seymour heard it. Indeed, it prompted Mr Seymour, when he gave oral evidence, to apologise publicly to Senior Constable Robens.
I found it a sobering and helpful Victim Impact Statement. In it, Senior Constable Robens set out his acknowledgement that the occupation of police officers is dangerous and riding a motorcycle makes him more vulnerable. He referred to other attempts that had been made to hit him with a motor vehicle and pointed out that serious injury or death would result.
He regularly witnessed members of the public being put at risk by offenders and he fears that risk personally. This causes him to fear the people he deals with. Further, within a month of the incident with Mr Seymour, he had been the victim of a similar incident. He was worried about how incidents such as these, if resulting in injury to an offender, can be misinterpreted. He referred to the horror felt by his family when he told them of the incident and the regular stress that knowledge of such incidents places on his wife.
It is important for the Court to hear such matters and to get a true understanding of the actual harm suffered by a victim because of the offence. It is also regrettable when, contrary to the statutory description of a Victim Impact Statement, matters such as advocacy or suggestions to the Court as to the sentence are included in such Statements.

On 18 September 2020, Mr Seymour was convicted in the ACT Magistrates Court for an earlier offence of driving with a prescribed drug in his oral fluid. A Good Behaviour Order for 12 months was made with a probation condition. His response to the probation supervision was said to be poor, but that was said to be because of his re-offending with these offences during the supervision period. These offences clearly breach the condition of the Good Behaviour Order not to commit any other offences against the territory law: s 86(1)(a)(i) of the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT).
On Mr Seymour's plea of guilty, I found that the offences had been made out and that there has been a breach of that Good Behaviour Order. This raises two matters.
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 assessment of the prospects of Mr Seymour's rehabilitation and reintegration into the community.
Secondly, however, I must deal with the breach itself. Despite the fact that it was an order made by the Magistrates Court, the terms of s 107(1) of the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act permit me deal with this breach: see R v Mathews at [39]. For this task I had, as would be necessary, a copy of the Statement of Facts tendered in the Magistrates Court on the sentencing when the Good Behaviour Order was made. From that, I found that ACT Police, on mobile patrol, noticed Mr Seymour run to a unit complex in Gowrie, ACT, from a motor vehicle parked adjacent to the complex.
Police spoke to Mr Seymour, who identified himself. He was required to undergo an Alcohol Screening Test which proved a negative result, and a Drug Screening Test which proved a positive result. There was no information as to whether there were any special reasons why he was required to undertake these Tests, though all that is required is that he is or was a driver of a motor vehicle: ss 8 and 13A of the Road Transport (Alcohol and Drugs) Act.
Because of the positive result to his Drug Screening Test, Mr Seymour was taken into custody and brought to the City Police Station where he supplied a sample of oral fluid for testing. This fluid indicated, upon testing, the presence of a prescribed drug. When asked, Mr Seymour said that he had taken ‘ice’ recently. I understand ‘ice’ to be methamphetamine, a proscribed drug. At the time of Mr Seymour being approached in Gowrie, the weather conditions were fine, the road was dry and in good condition, and the traffic flow was light.
I have, under s 108 of the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act, a range of options for re-sentencing, which include cancelling the order and re-sentencing Mr Seymour. As he does not appear to have a relevant or corresponding offence of a like nature on his record, he is, for this offence, a first offender, for which the maximum penalty is a fine of $1,600.

Sentencing is always a difficult task to take all relevant factors into account and construct the instinctive synthesis that constitutes the sentence. In this Territory, the task is made a little easier by the codification of the objects and functions of sentencing set out in ss 6 and 7 of the Sentencing Act, to which a court sentencing an offender must have regard and that is helpful.
In this case, the serious nature of the driving offences does mean that punishment is an important matter that the sentence must display. Such offending also renders vulnerable people at risk of serious injury or death, so that the sentence should deter others from engaging in such behaviour. This, of course, will prevent crime and thereby protect the community.
The rehabilitation 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 opportunity to stem the resurgence of criminality that he has recently undertaken after a significant period without offending.
It is necessary, however, to make him accountable for his actions and to denounce his conduct. It is also important for the sentence to recognise the harm done to the victim. For this, the hearing of the Victim Impact Statement has been invaluable.
I accept that Mr Seymour was under the influence of drugs at the time of his offending. Whilst 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].
I take into account the nature and circumstances of the offences as I have described them above (at [26]-[47]), both as setting out the facts and evaluating the actual offences, the personal circumstances of Mr Seymour as I have found them, the harm done to the victim, the breach of conditional liberty, his pleas of guilty, the remorse shown by Mr Seymour, the responsibility he has taken for committing these offences, as well as his commitment to rehabilitation and the other matters to which I referred. In all the circumstances, however, no other sentence than a sentence of imprisonment is appropriate: s 10 of the Sentencing Act.
In this case there are multiple offences for which Mr Seymour has to be sentenced. I must impose a sentence for each offence and I have carefully considered the length of each sentence to ensure that it is just and adequate and also to ensure that Mr Seymour is not punished twice.
I have also to consider whether the sentences should be partly or wholly concurrent because, for example, they are part of the same course of conduct or contain common elements. This is relevant as the two transferred driving offence charges do also constitute elements of the aggravated dangerous driving charges.
I have then considered the length of the total sentence of imprisonment arrived at to ensure that the principle of totality is respected and the total sentence is adequate to reflect the criminality of the offences committed but no more than that, and that the total sentence is not excessive but will leave open the realistic prospect of reform and maintain the hope required for Mr Seymour to take an effective part in the community, reconnect with his children and realise his aims when he is released.
This may result in what is seen by some as leniency, in that some sentences are made concurrent, but while the total criminality of Mr Seymour is an important factor, his growing awareness of his need for and his commitment to rehabilitation is also important, as is the circumstances of his early introduction to drug use. Thus, it requires a sentence proportionate to his culpability for the crimes, the effect on the community, but also Mr Seymour's subjective circumstances and the value of reform, both to the community and to himself.
Mr Seymour has been in custody since 16 October 2020 and I shall reflect that in the sentence by backdating the start of the sentence under s 63 of the Sentencing Act.

Mr Seymour, please stand.
I convict you of driving at a police officer. I sentence you to 27 months imprisonment, to commence on 16 October 2020 and end on 15 January 2023. Had you not pleaded guilty, I would have sentenced you to three years imprisonment.
I convict you of the first count of aggravated dangerous driving and sentence you to 14 months imprisonment, to commence on 16 July 2022 and end on 15 September 2023. That is to be cumulative as to eight months on the sentence for driving at a police officer. Had you not pleaded guilty, I would have sentenced you to 18 months imprisonment. You are also disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver licence for 12 months.
I convict you of the second count of aggravated dangerous driving and sentence you to 14 months imprisonment, to commence on 16 March 2023 and end on 15 May 2024. That is to be cumulative as to eight months on the sentence for the first count of aggravated dangerous driving. You are also disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver licence for 12 months.
I convict you of driving whilst disqualified and I require you 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. You are also disqualified from holding or obtaining a driving licence for 12 months.
I convict you of the first count of drug driving and fine you $500 and allow you 12 months to pay. You are also disqualified from holding or obtaining a driving licence for 12 months.
I confirm your conviction for the second count of drug driving, but I cancel the Good Behaviour Order made in the Magistrates Court and instead I re-sentence you by fining you $300 and allow you 12 months to pay.
I direct that the multiple disqualification periods relating to holding or obtaining a driver license be served concurrently under s 69 of the Road Transport (General) Act 1999 (ACT).
Mr Seymour, you may be seated.
I have now imposed a total sentence of 43 months imprisonment for the offences committed by Mr Seymour. He has asked that I make a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Order (a Treatment Order) under s 12A of the Sentencing Act.
I must first consider the eligibility requirements in s 12A of the Sentencing Act. The sentence of imprisonment for driving at a police officer is 27 months, which is greater than the minimum of 12 months prescribed in the section, and the total imprisonment for all offences is less than the maximum of 4 years imprisonment.
Further, Mr Seymour is not subject to any other sentencing order within the meaning of the section, even with the additional Good Behaviour Orders and the fines. I am also satisfied that Mr Seymour will be resident in the ACT for the next two years and that the Treatment Order regime has been explained to Mr Seymour and that he has had an opportunity to ask questions and has had them answered. I am satisfied that he has consented to the making of such an Order.
In addition, the Suitability Assessments referred to above (at [4]) satisfy me that he has a severe substance abuse disorder, which means that he is dependent on illicit drugs. I am also satisfied that his heavy intoxication substantially contributed to his offending. Accordingly, I am satisfied that he is eligible for a Treatment Order and I must now consider whether it is appropriate to make one.
I have carefully read the Suitability Assessments, which are expertly prepared reports of very great assistance in this task. Both Reports recommend that Mr Seymour is suitable for a Treatment Order. The Crown did not oppose the making of such an Order. I am not aware of any indications of unsuitability set out in Table 46K of the Sentencing Act. Accordingly, I am satisfied that it is appropriate to make a Treatment Order for Mr Seymour.
Finally, I note that, although I have commenced the sentence of imprisonment on 16 October 2020, which period, from that date until today, has in part been served in custody, and that the sentence must 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].

I direct that you appear by electronic means in Court on 18 June 2021 at 12:30 pm.
I direct that you attend the court registry before you leave the Court precincts to sign a sealed copy of this Order.
Mr Seymour, please be seated.
Mr Seymour, that is a lot of words. You have been around the Court, so you probably understand a lot of what I have said, but I am obliged to explain the orders to you, and no doubt your very competent counsel will explain them to you if you need some assistance.
I have said that to drive at a police officer is very serious offence in our law and it deserves a very significant term of imprisonment. Aggravated dangerous driving is also serious and deserves a significant term of imprisonment.
For breaches of the road rules, offences are also to be punished and I have made appropriate orders for that.
I am satisfied that it is your dependency on drugs that has led you to where you are today and I am satisfied that you have shown in the past that you can refrain from this kind of behaviour. I sense that you are keen to get back to that kind of life rather than the life that you have been living, and therefore I have made a Treatment Order for you and that will assist you to do so
It will be hard. There will be problems along the way, but the more you address those problems and overcome them the stronger you will get and the easier it will be. The value of this Order is that there are people around you, very expert people, who can support you, not only in the Karralika Therapeutic Community but also through this Court. In Karralika, you will find people who will want to mentor you and assist you to get into the program and then succeed in it and, hopefully, in time you might become one of those people and mentor other people through the program as well.
But it will be hard. It is not easy to put your long drug use that you have been used to behind you with the click of a finger as your drug use is a kind of default position, where you go back to using when things get hard. Here you cannot do that. No drugs, no alcohol, no tobacco, just hard work to address these problems and other problems about how to re-integrate into the community.
One of the really important things, apart from trying to be abstinent which we can help you through, is trying to be honest. Be honest with yourself about what you have been doing and don not make excuses for yourself; we all do that to some extent.
Be honest with yourself and be honest with others. In your groups, it will be hard to tell other people things that are your innermost secrets and you are not necessarily proud of, perhaps even ashamed of; to tell your counsellors, to tell your case managers. But it is really important to be honest because that will also make you very strong and will also encourage and facilitate your rehabilitation.
When things get hard do not go back to drugs and do not run away. That way you are almost certainly going to end up back in the Alexander Maconochie Centre with this sentence of nearly four years hanging over your head. Do not run away.
One of the reasons why you will come back and see me in Court, probably by audio-visual link, every week for a while is so that if things are getting tough we can discuss those issues. I can make those discussions private if you want as you may be with other people on the audio-visual link. Talk to your lawyer and we can sort that out.
Sitting up here with a great team to support me, I can see that it is amazing what can actually be achieved. I cannot suddenly put you to the top of the housing list and give you priority housing tomorrow, but there are some things that we can do to support you in all that you need to do and, in particular, in working through this difficult program and achieving what you want to achieve.
Don not run away. That is really important. Come and see me. Ask to see me confidentially. There will be other people in the room, lawyers and so on, but not necessarily other participants if that is a problem, or other program staff if that is a problem.
At the end of the day, you will find that your life will be so much more, but it will be a long, hard road. This Court will support you. Most Courts just send you off to jail because there are no options available. I am lucky, hugely lucky, that I have got these options and can support you, and that is what this Court will want to do.
So, use this opportunity and I hope it works for you. I put some trust in you that this is what you want and this is what you can do. The best thanks I can get from you is for you to work hard and to succeed. I hope that happens. I wish you every good luck.

R v Seymour [2021] ACTSC 152

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Catchwords

Source

Catchwords

Judgment

Parties

Legislation Cited (6)

Cited By (2)