Bayley v Police

The case of Bayley v Police involved an appeal against a conviction for driving in a manner dangerous to the public and a cross-appeal against the dismissal of a charge of driving without due care and attention. The defendant, Edward David Joseph Bayley, was initially acquitted by a magistrate but the acquittal was overturned by a single judge. The Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia was asked to determine the validity of the defence of necessity in these circumstances. The charges arose from two incidents of dangerous driving following an altercation with the occupants of a van. The defence of necessity was raised on the basis that the defendant's actions were taken in response to perceived threats of personal violence.

The legal issues before the court were whether the defence of necessity could be successfully invoked in the circumstances and whether the defendant's actions were proportionate to the perceived threat. The court had to consider whether the defendant honestly believed on reasonable grounds that there was a threat of death or serious injury to himself or others, and that his actions were necessary to remove that threat. Additionally, the court needed to determine if there was a reasonable alternative course of action available to the defendant and whether his conduct was proportionate to the perceived threat.

The Full Court, in dismissing the appeal and allowing the cross-appeal, held that the defence of necessity was not applicable in this case. The court found that the defendant's conduct was reckless, extreme, and out of all proportion to the necessity to meet the perceived threat. The court held that the perceived threat and danger were materially exacerbated by the defendant’s conduct. It was concluded that reasonable alternatives were available to the defendant to alleviate the perceived threat. Consequently, the conviction for driving without due care was reinstated, and the matter was remitted for sentencing.