"D" (A CHILD) -v- HILL [1999] WASCA 38

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[1999] WASCA 38
Published:	28/05/1999
Case No:	SJA:1012/1999	Heard:	11 MAY 1999
Coram:	McKECHNIE J	Delivered:	11/05/99
No of pages:	7	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal dismissed
PDF Version

Parties:	"D" (A CHILD) GRANT DOUGLAS HILL
Catchwords:	Road traffic Reckless driving Whether sufficient evidence of wilfulness Turns on own facts
Legislation:	Road Traffic Act 1974
Case References:	Atree v Randall (1993) 19 MVR 95 Vrisakis v Australian Securities Commission (1993) 9 WAR 395 Abalos v Australina Postal Commission (1990) 171 CLR 167 Brunskill v Sovereign Marine & General Insurance Co Pty Ltd (1985) 59 ALJR 842 Da Costa v Cockburn Salvage & Trading Pty Ltd (1970) 124 CLR 192 Davey v Ridge, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 4824; 17 March 1983 Devries v Australian National Railways Commission (19930 177 CLR 472 Edmond v Taylor (1998) 27 MVR 158 Mann v Mann (1957) 97 CLR 433 R v Gwynne (A child), unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 990024; 1 February 1999 Tate v Arnold (1993) 19 MVR 649

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA CITATION : "D" (A CHILD) -v- HILL [1999] WASCA 38 CORAM : McKECHNIE J HEARD : 11 MAY 1999 DELIVERED : 11 MAY 1999 PUBLISHED : 28 MAY 1999 FILE NO/S : SJA 1012 of 1999 BETWEEN : "D" (A CHILD)

Appellant

AND

GRANT DOUGLAS HILL

Respondent

Catchwords:

Road traffic - Reckless driving - Whether sufficient evidence of wilfulness - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Road Traffic Act 1974

Result:

Appeal dismissed

(Page 2)

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : Ms S A Dechow

Respondent : Ms C V M Barton

Solicitors:

Appellant : Youth Legal Service

Respondent : State Crown Solicitor

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Atree v Randall (1993) 19 MVR 95
Vrisakis v Australian Securities Commission (1993) 9 WAR 395

Case(s) also cited:

Abalos v Australina Postal Commission (1990) 171 CLR 167
Brunskill v Sovereign Marine & General Insurance Co Pty Ltd (1985) 59 ALJR 842
Da Costa v Cockburn Salvage & Trading Pty Ltd (1970) 124 CLR 192
Davey v Ridge, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 4824; 17 March 1983
Devries v Australian National Railways Commission (19930 177 CLR 472
Edmond v Taylor (1998) 27 MVR 158
Mann v Mann (1957) 97 CLR 433
R v Gwynne (A child), unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 990024; 1 February 1999
Tate v Arnold (1993) 19 MVR 649

(Page 3)

1 McKECHNIE J : This is an appeal against a decision of a learned Children's Court Magistrate against a finding of reckless driving made against the appellant after trial on 19 January 1999. It is of interest to note that at the commencement of the hearing, counsel for the appellant indicated that the appellant had always been prepared to plead guilty to dangerous driving and that was particularised before me today as "going round the corner too fast".

2 The prosecution called three witnesses. Mr White…

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 "D" (A Child) v Hill

Details

AGLC: "D" (A Child) v Hill [1999] WASCA 38
Case: [1999] WASCA 38
Decision Date: 28 MAY 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of "D" (A Child) v Hill involves a legal dispute regarding an incident of reckless driving. The child, referred to as "D", was involved in an accident with the defendant, Hill. The matter was brought before the court to determine whether Hill's actions constituted reckless driving under the relevant legislation. The court was tasked with deciding if the evidence presented was sufficient to prove that Hill's driving was wilfully reckless, thus warranting criminal liability.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the evidence provided was adequate to demonstrate that Hill's actions were not merely negligent but amounted to wilful recklessness. The court had to assess the standard of proof required and whether the evidence met that threshold. The determination hinged on interpreting the statutory definition of reckless driving and applying it to the facts of the case. The court needed to consider whether Hill's behaviour demonstrated a gross deviation from what a reasonable driver would have done under similar circumstances.

In examining the evidence, the court concluded that the proof was sufficient to establish that Hill's driving was wilfully reckless. The court found that Hill's actions showed a clear disregard for the safety of others on the road, which met the legal definition of recklessness. The evidence demonstrated that Hill's behaviour was not merely careless but involved a conscious and unjustified decision to take a significant risk that endangered others. As a result, the appeal was dismissed, upholding the original decision that Hill was guilty of reckless driving.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed

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.