Legal Research
Cases
Cuthbert v Coates

Cuthbert v Coates

Case [2018] TASSC 7 20 February 2018

Type to search within this case.

[2018] TASSC 7

COURT: SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA

CITATION: Cuthbert v Coates [2018] TASSC 7

PARTIES:  CUTHBERT, James Andrew
  v
  COATES, Daryl (SC)

FILE NO:  1881/2017
DELIVERED ON:  20 February 2018
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATE:  19 October 2017
JUDGMENT OF:  Brett J

CATCHWORDS:

Traffic Law – Offences – Negligent driving – Particular acts or omissions – Evidence that applicant drove into left hand bend too fast to be able to maintain control of his car – Conclusion that driver was negligent reasonably open to magistrate.

Traffic Act 1925 (Tas), s 32(2B)

Aust Dig Traffic Law [1104]

Traffic Law – Offences – Negligent driving – Other matters – Causing grievous bodily harm by negligent driving – Meaning of grievous bodily harm – Passenger had metal rod attached to spine by pedicle screws from surgery from a previous fracture – Collision resulted in screw in spine breaking, causing metal rod to push into bone – Conclusion that this amounted to grievous bodily harm was reasonably open to magistrate.

Traffic Act 1925 (Tas), s 32(2B)
R v Rhodes (1984) 14 A Crim R 124; R v Overall (1993) 71 A Crim R 170; Tasmania v Gladwin [2016] TASSC 64, cited.
R v Swan [2016] NSWCCA 79; Wick v The Queen [2017] NSWCCA 244, considered.
Aust Dig Traffic Law [1105]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Appellant:  G Stevens
             Respondent:  E Avery
Solicitors:
             Appellant:  Steven Chopping
             Respondent:  Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment Number: [2018] TASSC 7
Number of paragraphs: 42

Serial No 7/2018
File No 1881/2017

JAMES ANDREW CUTHBERT v DARYL COATES SC

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BRETT J

20 February 2018

On 14 June 2017, Chief Magistrate Geason found the applicant guilty of one count of causing grievous bodily harm by negligent driving, contrary to s 32(2B) of the Traffic Act 1925. The charge arose out of an incident which occurred on 28 October 2015 when a vehicle being driven by the applicant along the Channel Highway left the road and collided with a power pole. It was alleged that the front seat passenger in the vehicle, Shinead Palmer, suffered bodily harm, amounting to grievous bodily harm, as a result of the collision.
The applicant has moved this Court to review the finding of guilt. The grounds of review assert that the Chief Magistrate erred in finding:
(a)that the applicant's driving, which led to the collision and hence the bodily harm, was negligent (ground 2); and
(b)that Ms Palmer suffered grievous bodily harm as a result of the collision (ground 3).
The notice also asserts that the learned magistrate erred in law in dismissing the applicant's submission that he had no case to answer (ground 1). The submission was that the evidence adduced on the prosecution case at hearing was not capable of satisfying a jury, in law, that the injury sustained by Ms Palmer amounted to grievous bodily harm. It is the common position of the parties that that ground, for all practical purposes,…

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 Cuthbert v Coates

Details

AGLC: Cuthbert v Coates [2018] TASSC 7
Case: [2018] TASSC 7
Decision Date: 20 February 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties in the case of Cuthbert v Coates were the applicant, Cuthbert, and Coates, who was charged with negligent driving. The dispute arose from an incident where Cuthbert allegedly drove into a left-hand bend too fast, leading to a loss of control of his vehicle. The matter was brought before the court to determine whether the evidence supported a finding of negligence on Cuthbert's part. The court was required to decide if the evidence was sufficient to conclude that Cuthbert was negligent, and whether this conclusion was reasonably open to the magistrate.

The legal issues that the court had to address included the interpretation of the term "negligent driving" under the relevant traffic laws and the standard of proof needed to establish negligence. Specifically, the court had to assess whether the evidence presented was sufficient to support a finding of negligence and if the conclusion reached by the magistrate was justified based on the facts of the case. The court also had to consider the weight and credibility of the evidence provided to determine if the magistrate's conclusion was reasonable.

In delivering the judgment, the court found that the evidence presented was sufficient to reasonably support a conclusion of negligence on Cuthbert's part. The court emphasised that the magistrate had considered all relevant evidence and had come to a conclusion that was open to them based on the facts presented. The court noted that it was not their role to substitute their judgment for that of the magistrate but to assess whether the magistrate's decision was supported by the evidence. The court upheld the magistrate's decision, confirming that the conclusion of negligence was reasonably open and properly based on the evidence.

The final orders of the court were to dismiss the application, affirming the magistrate's decision that Cuthbert was guilty of negligent driving. The court did not find any errors in the magistrate's reasoning or in the conclusion reached, and therefore upheld the conviction. The court's decision underscores the importance of the magistrate's role in assessing the evidence and reaching a conclusion, provided that conclusion is reasonably open based on the evidence presented.

Orders