Chaplin v Lane - [2014] TASSC 32

[2014] TASSC 32

COURT: SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA

CITATION: Chaplin v Lane [2014] TASSC 32

PARTIES:  CHAPLIN, Bradley John
  v
  LANE, Richard

FILE NO:  163/2014
DELIVERED ON:  18 June 2014
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATE:  20 May 2014
JUDGMENT OF:  Blow CJ

CATCHWORDS:

Traffic Law – Offences – Particular offences – Negligent driving – Other matters – Charge of causing death by negligent driving – Causation – Speeding resulting in motorist being at point where child stepped onto road.

Traffic Act 1925 (Tas), s32(2A).
Mobbs v Kain (2009) 54 MVR 179, followed.
Aust Dig Traffic Law [1105]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Applicant:  C J Gunson, M Goldberg
             Respondent:  S Nicholson, M J Allen
Solicitors:
             Applicant:  FitzGerald & Browne
             Respondent:  Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment Number: [2014] TASSC 32
Number of paragraphs: 20

Serial No 32/2014
File No 163/2014

BRADLEY JOHN CHAPLIN v RICHARD LANE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BLOW CJ

18 June 2014

This is a motion for the review of an order made by a magistrate, Mrs O McTaggart, convicting the applicant, Bradley Chaplin, on a charge of causing death by negligent driving, contrary to s32(2A) of the Traffic Act 1925.
On the afternoon of 29 February 2012 the applicant was driving in an easterly direction along Gordon River Road at Karanja, heading towards Glenora. A school bus had been travelling in the opposite direction, and had stopped to let some children get off. The applicant had been travelling at about 100km/h, but slowed down to about 80km/h. As he passed the bus, a 13-year-old schoolgirl named Ashley Edmonds hurried onto the road from behind the rear of the bus. There was a collision between the applicant's vehicle and the girl. As a result, she died at the scene shortly afterwards.
At the hearing before the learned magistrate, the prosecutor relied on two particulars of negligence, which alleged that the applicant did the following things:
"(a)Drove a motor vehicle at an excessive speed, namely 80km/hr, when you were within 50 metres of a school bus that was stopped and displaying warning signs and flashing amber lights to the front and rear and which school children were alighting or were reasonably expected to be alighting.
(b)Drove a motor vehicle whilst failing to keep a proper lookout."
The learned magistrate rejected the assertion that the applicant had failed to keep a proper lookout, but found the charge proven on the basis that he had caused the death by driving negligently in that he drove his vehicle at an excessive speed as alleged. On the hearing of the motion to review, there was no challenge to the finding that the applicant drove at 80km/h, nor to the finding that he was negligent in driving at such an excessive speed. It was accepted that the girl died as a result of a collision with the vehicle driven by the applicant. However the applicant contends that the learned magistrate erred in concluding that she was satisfied beyond reasonable…

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 Chaplin v Lane

Details

AGLC: Chaplin v Lane [2014] TASSC 32
Case: [2014] TASSC 32
Decision Date: 18 June 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Chaplin v Lane was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland and involved a dispute regarding the charge of causing death by negligent driving. The defendant, Mr. Lane, was charged after a child was killed when stepping into the path of his vehicle. The prosecution alleged that Mr. Lane was driving at an excessive speed, which led to the fatal incident. The central issue before the court was whether the defendant's negligent driving directly caused the child's death.

The court had to determine whether Mr. Lane's speeding and subsequent positioning at the location where the child stepped onto the road constituted negligent driving that resulted in the child's death. The court examined whether there was a causal link between Mr. Lane's actions and the death of the child. The defence argued that the child's sudden appearance in the road was an unforeseeable event that broke the chain of causation.

After considering the evidence, the court found that Mr. Lane's negligent driving did indeed cause the child's death. The court held that Mr. Lane was driving at a speed that did not allow him to stop in time to avoid hitting the child, and his failure to reduce speed in a manner appropriate for the circumstances demonstrated a significant departure from the standard of care expected of a reasonable driver. The court concluded that the death was a direct result of Mr. Lane's negligent driving. Consequently, the court upheld the charge against Mr. Lane.

Orders