Doddridge v Tasmania - [2010] TASCCA 18

[2010] TASCCA 18

COURT: SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA (COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL)

CITATION: Doddridge v Tasmania [2010] TASCCA 18

PARTIES:  DODDRIDGE, Lawrence John
  v
  STATE OF TASMANIA

FILE NO/S:  753/2009
DELIVERED ON:  11 November 2010
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATE:  11 and 12 August 2010
JUDGMENT OF:  Crawford CJ, Tennent and Porter JJ

CATCHWORDS:

Evidence – Admissibility and relevancy – Opinion evidence – Expert opinion – Qualifications of witness.
R v Bjordal (2005) 93 SASR 237, Makita (Aust) Pty Ltd v Sprowles (2001) 52 NSWLR 705, followed.
R v Murphy [1980] QB 434, R v Oakley [1979] RTR 417, R v Bonython (1984) 38 SASR 45, Clark v Ryan (1960) 103 CLR 486, referred to.
Evidence Act 2001 (Tas), s79.
Aust Dig Evidence [56]

Criminal Law – Evidence – Judicial discretion to admit or exclude evidence – Prejudicial evidence – Generally.

Festa v R (2001) 208 CLR 593, followed.
Evidence Act 2001 (Tas), s137.
Aust Dig Criminal Law [2680]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Appellant:  G A Richardson
             Respondent:  K Brown
Solicitors:
             Appellant:  S G Wright
             Respondent:  Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment Number: [2010] TASCCA 18
Number of paragraphs: 86

Serial No 18/2010
File No 753/2009

LAWRENCE JOHN DODDRIDGE v STATE OF TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

CRAWFORD CJ
TENNENT J
PORTER J
11 November 2010

Order of the Court

Appeal and application for leave to appeal dismissed.

Serial No 18/2010
File No 753/2009

LAWRENCE JOHN DODDRIDGE v STATE OF TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

CRAWFORD CJ
11 November 2010

In July 2009, the appellant was tried for manslaughter before Slicer J and a jury. The charge concerned the manner in which he drove a red Ford Falcon sedan northwards on Natone Road on 21 March 2008. It collided with a motor cycle travelling in the opposite direction. The rider was killed. The appellant was found guilty and sentenced to imprisonment for five years from 29 July 2009, with a non-parole period of three years and three months, and disqualified from driving, effectively for eight years from the date of the sentence.

He appealed against his conviction asserting errors of law by the learned trial judge in admitting evidence. He also sought leave to appeal against his conviction on the ground that the verdict was unsafe and unsatisfactory having regard to the evidence and the fact that there was no evidence of what the notice of appeal refers to as "the critical speed" of the corner where the accident occurred.

The accident happened on a sweeping right hand bend when viewed by the appellant. Visibility around the bend was severely limited. The speed limit in the area was 100 kph. He was heading north through a country area that had some houses. The Crown's case was that he was driving at an excessively fast speed over a distance of about 12 kilometres leading up to the accident. He drove around a left hand bend and then into the right hand bend.…

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 Doddridge v Tasmania

Details

AGLC: Doddridge v Tasmania [2010] TASCCA 18
Case: [2010] TASCCA 18
Decision Date: 11 November 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicants, Doddridge and others, appealed to the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Tasmania against their convictions. The central dispute concerned the admissibility of certain evidence, specifically opinion evidence given by a witness whose qualifications were challenged, and the exercise of judicial discretion in admitting potentially prejudicial evidence.

The Full Court was required to determine whether the trial judge erred in admitting the opinion evidence of a particular witness, despite objections to their expertise. Furthermore, the court had to consider whether the admission of this evidence, or any other evidence, constituted an improper exercise of judicial discretion, particularly in light of its potential prejudicial effect on the jury.

The Court reasoned that the witness possessed sufficient practical experience and knowledge to be considered an expert for the purposes of giving opinion evidence on the matters in question. The judges applied the established principles regarding the admissibility of expert opinion, focusing on whether the witness's knowledge went beyond that of an ordinary person and was relevant to the issues before the court. Regarding the discretionary limb, the Court found no error in the trial judge's assessment of the probative value of the evidence against its prejudicial impact, concluding that the evidence was properly admitted.

Consequently, the appeal and the applications for leave to appeal were dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal and application for leave to 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.