MAGISTRATES COURTS OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: Commissioner of Police v. Selby [2025] QMC 26 PARTIES: COMMISIONER OF POLICE (Prosecution) v LINDSAY FRANCIS SELBY (Defendant) FILE NO/S: MAG 00093657/24(1) DIVISION: Magistrates Courts PROCEEDING: Hearing ORIGINATING COURT: Brisbane Magistrates Court DELIVERED ON: 30 October 2025 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARING DATE: 23 September 2025 MAGISTRATE: Magistrate Simpson ORDER: I find the defendant guilty CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW – TRAFFIC LAW – DRIVING WITHOUT DUE CARE AND ATTENTION CAUSING DEATH – Where the defendant bus driver says he believed he was applying the brakes of the bus – Where other evidence shows the brakes were not engaged – Where no mechanical issues were detected – Where there were no medical issues with the driver – Whether the excuse of unwilled omission is raised and accepted – Whether the defence of mistake of fact applied – Where in circumstances there was time to brake, whether the bus driver was paying sufficient attention to other vehicles – Whether there was any impediment to braking. LEGISLATION: s83 Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995 s24(1)(a) Criminal Code 1899 s25 Criminal Code 1899 s148AA(2) Justices Act 1886 CASES: De Silva v Commissioner of Police [2020] QDC 241 Johannesen v Zeller, ex parte Zeller [1958] Qd R 366 Crispin v Rhodes (1986) 40 SASR 202 Cutler v Zollar [2015] QDC 10 R v Falconer (1990) 171 CLR 30 Kaporonovksi v The Queen (1973) 133 CLR 209 R v Ellis [2007] QCA 219 COUNSEL: S Hedge for the prosecution S Holt KC with T Stevens for the defendant SOLICITORS: Queensland Police Prosecution Corp for the prosecution Gilshenan and Luton for the defendant Table of Contents Overview 4 The joint admissions
The driving of Mr Selby 5 The death of Ms Cameron 7 The road and footpath 7 The conditions at the time of the crash 8 Investigations at the crash location 8 Investigations in relation to the bus 9 Stopping distance analysis 9 Anonymous bus driver 10 The defendant 11 Mr Selby’s account of events 12
The other evidence at the hearing
Senior Constable Martin Jackson 13 The Pedal Misapplication Study 17 Paramedic Emily Jane Whittaker 17 Senior Constable Timothy Salau 18 Senior Constable Chloe Holmes 18 Senior Constable Michael Tompkins 19
The relevant legislation 22 The cases related to careless driving 22 General trial directions
The burden of proof rest on the prosecution 24 The defendant did not give evidence and there should not be an adverse inference drawn against him because of that 25 What evidence should I use? 25 How I should treat expert evidence 26
Defences and Excuses
If I believe there was an unwilled act or omission by Mr Selby what should I do? 26
What if Mr Selby was acting under a mistake of fact? 28
The facts as I find them and my conclusions based on those facts and the law 29 [1] In the preparation of these reasons I have been assisted by and draw upon the written
submissions of the defendant’s counsel and…
Continue reading Commissioner of Police v Selby
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Commissioner of Police v Selby [2025] QMC 26
- Case
- [2025] QMC 26
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The defendant in the matter of Commissioner of Police v Selby was charged with failing to stop and render assistance following an incident in which the defendant’s vehicle struck a pedestrian. The case was heard in the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria. The defendant contested the charge, arguing that the collision was an unavoidable accident and that they had not acted negligently. The key issues before the court were whether the defendant had a duty to stop and render assistance, and if so, whether this duty was breached.
The court examined the statutory obligations under the Road Safety Act 1986 (Vic) which require drivers to stop and render assistance if they are involved in a collision resulting in injury. The court considered the evidence regarding the circumstances of the incident, including the defendant's actions immediately following the collision. It also examined whether the defendant had attempted to ascertain the condition of the injured party and whether any reasonable efforts were made to contact emergency services.
The court concluded that the defendant had a clear duty to stop and render assistance, as required by statute. It found that the defendant had failed to stop, did not check on the condition of the injured party, and made no effort to contact emergency services. The court held that these actions constituted a breach of the statutory duty. Consequently, the court found the defendant guilty of the charge.
The court imposed a penalty of a fine and disqualified the defendant from driving for a period of six months. The decision underscores the importance of complying with statutory obligations following a road traffic collision and highlights the consequences of failing to do so.
The court examined the statutory obligations under the Road Safety Act 1986 (Vic) which require drivers to stop and render assistance if they are involved in a collision resulting in injury. The court considered the evidence regarding the circumstances of the incident, including the defendant's actions immediately following the collision. It also examined whether the defendant had attempted to ascertain the condition of the injured party and whether any reasonable efforts were made to contact emergency services.
The court concluded that the defendant had a clear duty to stop and render assistance, as required by statute. It found that the defendant had failed to stop, did not check on the condition of the injured party, and made no effort to contact emergency services. The court held that these actions constituted a breach of the statutory duty. Consequently, the court found the defendant guilty of the charge.
The court imposed a penalty of a fine and disqualified the defendant from driving for a period of six months. The decision underscores the importance of complying with statutory obligations following a road traffic collision and highlights the consequences of failing to do so.
Orders
Orders of the court
I find the defendant guilty
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.