Aston v The Queen

In the case of Aston v The Queen, the appellant, Aston, was convicted on six counts of negligently causing serious injury after he drove a chartered bus into a bridge, resulting in serious injuries to six passengers. Aston appealed against his conviction, arguing that the trial judge failed to leave the statutory alternative verdict of dangerous driving causing serious injury to the jury, that this omission constituted a substantial miscarriage of justice, and that the trial judge's directions on negligence were deficient. Additionally, Aston argued that it was improper for the informant to act as a'shower' for the purposes of a view.

The legal issues before the court were whether the failure to leave the statutory alternative verdict to the jury constituted a substantial miscarriage of justice, whether the trial judge's direction on negligence was deficient, and whether it was proper for the informant to act as a'shower' for the purposes of a view. The court considered the statutory provisions and case law relevant to these issues, including the Crimes Act 1958, the Jury Directions Act 2015, and the cases of Bouch v The Queen, King v The Queen, and James v The Queen.

The court found that the failure to leave the statutory alternative verdict to the jury constituted a substantial miscarriage of justice, as it was a fundamental error that went to the heart of the case. The court also found that the trial judge's direction on negligence was deficient, as it did not adequately explain the concept of negligence to the jury. However, the court found that the informant's role as a'shower' did not constitute a substantial miscarriage of justice. The court allowed the appeal and substituted convictions for dangerous driving causing serious injury in lieu of the convictions for negligently causing serious injury.

The final orders of the court were that leave to appeal was granted with respect to the failure to leave the statutory alternative verdict, the appeal was allowed, and convictions for dangerous driving causing serious injury were substituted in lieu of the convictions for negligently causing serious injury. The court's decision highlights the importance of ensuring that all relevant verdicts are left to the jury and that trial judges provide adequate directions on the applicable legal standards.