Legal Research
Cases
Aiken v R

Aiken v R

Case [2014] NSWCCA 213 3 October 2014

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Aiken v R [2014] NSWCCA 213
Hearing dates: 3 October 2014
Decision date: 03 October 2014
Before: Hoeben CJ at CL at [1];
Rothman J at [2];
R A Hulme J at [3]
Decision:
1. Leave to appeal granted.
2. Appeal dismissed.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - appeal against conviction - dangerous driving occasioning death - judge-alone trial - whether insufficient reasons given for conclusion as to dangerous driving - whether verdict unreasonable or not supported by the evidence - no contention that findings of fact were not open to be made - findings amply supported conclusion as to dangerousness of driving - verdict not unreasonable or unsupported
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Fleming v The Queen [1998] HCA 68; 197 CLR 250
SKA v The Queen [2011] HCA 13; 243 CLR 400
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Frances Mary Aiken (Appellant)
Regina (Respondent)
Representation: Counsel:
Ms A Cook (Appellant)
Ms T Smith (Crown)
Solicitors:
Legal Aid NSW
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

File Number(s): 2011/217080
Decision under appeal

Date of Decision:

2013-12-13 00:00:00

Before:

McLoughlin SC DCJ

File Number(s):

2011/217080

Judgment

HOEBEN CJ at CL: I agree with R A Hulme J.

ROTHMAN J: I also agree with R A Hulme J. I confirm that upon my own reading of the evidence at trial I am satisfied that the verdict was not unreasonable or unsupported.

R A HULME J: Frances Mary Aiken was found guilty after a judge-alone trial in the District Court of an offence of driving in a manner dangerous to other persons whereby her car was involved in an impact which occasioned the death of Mathew Aiken.

This is an offence contrary to s 52A(1)(c) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) for which the maximum penalty is imprisonment for 10 years. His Honour Judge McLoughlin SC subsequently sentenced Ms Aiken to imprisonment for 2 years and 6 months, with a non-parole period of 1 year and 3 months, with effect from 13 December 2013.

The appeal is only against conviction.

The grounds of appeal assert that the judge failed to give sufficient reasons for his determination that the appellant was driving in a manner dangerous to other persons (ground 1) and that the verdict of guilty is unreasonable and cannot be supported by the evidence (ground 2). There is no merit in either ground.

Overview of the case

Just after 4.00pm on 7 October 2010 Ms Aiken was driving her car along Princes Highway just north of, and away from, Batemans Bay. She moved into a right-turn only lane in order to make a turn into Berrima Parade. She brought the car to a stop. She then commenced to make the turn but an oncoming car collided with the passenger side of her car. Tragically, her 16 year-old nephew, who was sitting in the front passenger's seat, was killed. There was evidence that Ms Aiken had consumed cannabis to an extent that…

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 Aiken v R

Details

AGLC: Aiken v R [2014] NSWCCA 213
Case: [2014] NSWCCA 213
Decision Date: 03 October 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court was an appeal by the appellant against a conviction for dangerous driving occasioning death, following a trial before a judge alone. The deceased, who was a pedestrian, was struck by the appellant's vehicle. The appeal raised issues concerning the sufficiency of reasons given by the trial judge for the conclusion that the driving was dangerous and whether the verdict was unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence. There was no contention that the findings of fact were not open to be made. Instead, the focus was on the adequacy of the reasons provided and the overall reasonableness of the verdict.

The court considered whether the trial judge's reasons adequately explained the conclusion that the driving was dangerous. It was noted that the findings of fact were amply supported by the evidence and that the conclusion drawn from those facts was not unreasonable. The court held that the reasons provided were sufficient to demonstrate that the trial judge had properly exercised his or her discretion. The evidence, when viewed in its entirety, supported the conclusion that the driving was dangerous and that the verdict was not unreasonable or unsupported.

Consequently, the appeal was dismissed. The court found that the trial judge had adequately considered the evidence and provided sufficient reasons for his or her conclusion that the driving was dangerous. The verdict was deemed to be reasonable and supported by the evidence presented at trial. The court's decision upheld the conviction and the sentence imposed by the trial judge.

Orders