Director of Public Prosecutions v Spong

The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) appealed a decision of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory concerning the trial of Mr Spong for culpable driving involving negligence. The central dispute revolved around the correct legal direction to be given to the jury regarding the element of negligence required for a conviction under section 29 of the *Crimes Act 1900* (ACT). The appeal was heard by Murrell CJ, Mossop and Wigney JJ.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the trial judge erred in directing the jury that the accused's driving must involve a "high risk that death or serious injury would follow from the relevant conduct." This question necessitated an examination of the statutory interpretation of section 29 of the *Crimes Act 1900* (ACT), particularly in light of similar provisions in other jurisdictions, specifically section 318 of the *Crimes Act 1958* (Vic). The Court was required to determine if Victorian Court of Appeal authorities, which had interpreted the identical wording of the Victorian provision, should be applied to the ACT legislation, considering any differences in context and purpose.

The Court reasoned that the wording of section 29 of the *Crimes Act 1900* (ACT) does not require proof of a "high risk" of death or serious injury. Instead, it requires proof that the accused's conduct was negligent, meaning it fell below the standard of a reasonable driver and that this negligence caused the death of another person. The Court distinguished the ACT provision from the Victorian one, noting that while the wording was identical, the legislative context and purpose differed. Consequently, the Court held that the trial judge was neither required nor entitled to direct the jury that the driving must involve a "high risk that death or serious injury would follow from the relevant conduct." The Court therefore allowed the DPP's appeal.