R. v. Hindmarch

R. v. Hindmarch

Given the accused's extensive and repetitive record of driving-related offences and multiple prior long-term driving prohibitions that failed to deter him, the primary sentencing objectives are specific deterrence and public protection; a custodial sentence of 21 months reduced by credit for 71 days pre-trial custody to an effective 18.5 months, and a further ten year driving prohibition concurrent with the 2006 order, are proportionate and necessary; a probation order with a no-contact condition was disallowed as unrelated to this offence.

Citation
2010 BCSC 1257
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: David Lucas Hindmarch
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
24 August 2010
Procedural Posture
Criminal Driving While Prohibited (s.259(4) Criminal Code) / Sentencing After Guilty Plea
Outcome
Guilty plea on count 1; custodial sentence imposed and driving prohibition ordered; Crown's request for probation denied.
Legal Topics
Driving While Prohibited, Driving Prohibition, Specific Deterrence, Probation, Credit for Time Served, Concurrent Sentences
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Sentencing Motor Vehicle Offences Driving While Prohibited Driving Prohibition Specific Deterrence Probation Credit for Time Served +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

David Lucas Hindmarch

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Driving While Prohibited (s.259(4) Criminal Code) / Sentencing After Guilty Plea

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Appropriate custodial sentence for repeated driving while prohibited
  2. 2 Appropriate length and concurrency of driving prohibition
  3. 3 Whether a probation order with a no-contact condition is appropriate

Ratio Decidendi

Given the accused's extensive and repetitive record of driving-related offences and multiple prior long-term driving prohibitions that failed to deter him, the primary sentencing objectives are specific deterrence and public protection; a custodial sentence of 21 months reduced by credit for 71 days pre-trial custody to an effective 18.5 months, and a further ten year driving prohibition concurrent with the 2006 order, are proportionate and necessary; a probation order with a no-contact condition was disallowed as unrelated to this offence.

Court Disposition

Guilty plea on count 1; custodial sentence imposed and driving prohibition ordered; Crown's request for probation denied.

Orders

  • Imprisonment for 18.5 months after credit for 71 days pre-trial custody
  • Driving prohibition for a period of ten years to be concurrent with the prior June 15, 2006 order