Family weeps as judge extends drink-drive case

WHAT do you do with a serial drink-driver with an acquired brain injury who killed a great-grandmother as she slept when the car he was driving - while unlicensed - ploughed through the wall of her retirement village bedroom? That is the dilemma faced by Supreme Court judge Paul Coghlan as he continues to grapple with whether John Stein should face a custodial sentence for killing 92-year-old Helen Higginbotham.

By InvestSMART · 11 Sep 2012

By InvestSMART ·
11 Sep 2012

Comments

WHAT do you do with a serial drink-driver with an acquired brain injury who killed a great-grandmother as she slept when the car he was driving while unlicensed ploughed through the wall of her retirement village bedroom?

That is the dilemma faced by Supreme Court judge Paul Coghlan as he continues to grapple with whether John Stein should face a custodial sentence for killing 92-year-old Helen Higginbotham.

Stein's Toyota Camry sedan crashed through Mrs Higginbotham's bedroom wall at the Lexington Gardens retirement village in Springvale where he also lived just after 4am on May 12, 2011.

She was asleep in bed when his car landed on top of her, killing her instantly.

Stein, whose brain injury dates from a serious car crash in 1968, had a blood-alcohol reading more than three times the legal limit at 0.174, having spent several hours drinking at the Springvale RSL.

His car had been fitted with an interlock device, but because it had been voluntarily fitted, he had a pin-code that enabled him to circumvent the device.

Justice Coghlan said Stein was liable for a 10-year supervision order, but he needed more information before he decided whether that should be served in custody or not.

He told the court he had to strike a balance between Stein's autonomy and the safety of the community, adding that a supervision order committing a person to custody in a prison could not be made unless he was satisfied there were "no practicable alternatives".

The judge stated he was conscious of how long the process was taking, which he acknowledged was difficult for Mrs Higginbotham's family, but added: "I just think I need to get it right".

Brian Higginbotham wept as he read out an emotional victim impact statement to the court.

He described his mother as a very independent person who loved knitting, crocheting, playing cards, attending elderly citizen's meetings and going to her favourite hairdresser.

She also loved gardening and had moved from an upstairs room to the room in which she died so she could be close to the garden. She had even asked him to turn her bed around so she could lie in bed and look at the plants, he said.

Mr Higginbotham told Justice Coghlan he struggled to understand how Stein's disability could be used in his defence, yet his prior drink driving offences could not be presented to the jury as evidence.

Justice Coghlan extended Stein's bail while a further report is obtained by the Department of Human Services about custodial options. The matter will return to court on October 15.

Go to Google News, then click "Follow" button to add us.

Share this article and show your support

Frequently Asked Questions about this Article…

What happened in the Supreme Court drink‑driving case involving John Stein?

The case concerns John Stein, who drove his Toyota Camry through the bedroom wall of 92‑year‑old Helen Higginbotham at the Lexington Gardens retirement village in Springvale just after 4am on May 12, 2011. Mrs Higginbotham was asleep and was killed instantly. Stein had a blood‑alcohol reading of 0.174 and an acquired brain injury dating from a serious crash in 1968.

Why is the judge deciding whether John Stein should receive a custodial sentence?

Supreme Court Justice Paul Coghlan said he must balance Stein’s autonomy against community safety. Although he found Stein liable for a 10‑year supervision order, the judge said he could not commit Stein to custody unless he was satisfied there were 'no practicable alternatives,' so he is obtaining more information before deciding on a custodial sentence.

What is a supervision order and what did the judge say about a 10‑year order for Stein?

A supervision order is a court order that can require monitoring and conditions for a person over a set period. Justice Coghlan stated Stein was liable for a 10‑year supervision order, but he needed further information to determine whether that order should involve custody or other community‑based options.

How did an interlock device factor into the case and how was it circumvented?

Stein’s car had been fitted with an interlock device, but it was voluntarily fitted and came with a pin code that Stein could use to bypass the device. The article notes this as a factor in how he was able to drive while intoxicated.

What was Stein’s blood‑alcohol level and why is that significant in the court proceedings?

Stein recorded a blood‑alcohol level of 0.174, which the article says is more than three times the legal limit. That high reading is a central fact in the prosecution of the drink‑driving incident that caused Mrs Higginbotham’s death.

How did the victim’s family respond in court and what impact did that have?

Brian Higginbotham, the victim’s son, read an emotional victim impact statement in court and wept. He described his 92‑year‑old mother as independent, listing her hobbies and how she had moved rooms to be near the garden. The judge acknowledged how long the process has taken and said he wanted to get the decision right for the family and the community.

Why couldn’t Stein’s prior drink‑driving offences be presented to the jury?

The article reports that Stein’s prior drink‑driving offences could not be presented to the jury as evidence, though it does not detail the legal reasoning. Brian Higginbotham expressed frustration about that limitation during the hearing.

What are the next steps and timeline in this Supreme Court matter?

Justice Coghlan extended Stein’s bail while the Department of Human Services prepares a further report on custodial options. The matter is scheduled to return to court on October 15 for further consideration.