DPP v Towle (Ruling no 1) - [2007] VSC 551

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1460 of 2007

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

THOMAS TOWLE

Ruling No 1

JUDGE:	CUMMINS J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	19 December 2007
DATE OF RULING:	20 December 2007
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Towle (Ruling No 1)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2007] VSC 551

---

Criminal law and procedure – six counts of culpable driving causing death – four counts of causing serious injury negligently – related counts – jury trial – venue – considerations applicable to hearing of trial in area of offences – jury trial to be held in Melbourne not Mildura – videocasting of trial to Mildura – considerations applicable.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Director	Mr M Gamble SC with Ms A Forrester	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr R Richter QC with Ms K Blair	Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service

---

HIS HONOUR:

The accused, Mr Thomas Towle, is charged with six counts of culpable driving causing death, four counts of causing serious injury negligently, and related charges arising out of one episode of the driving of a motor vehicle by the accused on Saturday 18 February 2006 at Red Cliffs, south of Mildura, Victoria. At approximately 9.50 pm on 18 February 2006 the accused was driving a 1991 Ford station wagon in a 100km zone in an easterly direction on Myall Street, Cardross, south of Mildura. The vehicle crossed the intersection with Boobook Avenue, which runs north to south. East of Boobook Avenue (and where the deaths and injuries occurred) the location is Red Cliffs. Stop signs applied to traffic in Boobook Avenue at its intersection with Myall Street. Travelling on Myall Street west to east, there is a deviation of that street somewhat to the right approaching Boobook Avenue. It is alleged that the accused’s vehicle lost control and ran into a group of young persons on or near the southern side of Myall Street (that is, on the opposite side of Myall Street from which the accused’s vehicle had been travelling) east of the intersection. Tragically, six of the young persons were killed and a number of the survivors were grievously injured. The accused decamped the scene by foot, leaving his own little children – who had been with him in his vehicle – behind, and at 3.20 a.m. the next morning was arrested. After police interview, he was charged with the present offences. The circumstances of the driving will be the subject of evidence at trial and I make no further reference to them in this Ruling.

A committal hearing was conducted in the Mildura Magistrates’ Court from 19 to 27 March 2007. On 27 March 2007 the learned Magistrate committed the accused for trial on all counts. At the submission of the Director which was not opposed by senior counsel for the accused, Her Honour committed the accused for trial in this Court at Melbourne. Presentment was filed in this Court on 5 June 2007.…

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 DPP v Towle (Ruling no 1)

Details

AGLC: Director of Public Prosecutions v Towle (Ruling no 1) [2007] VSC 551
Case: [2007] VSC 551
Decision Date: 20 December 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved the Director of Public Prosecutions bringing charges against Towle for six counts of culpable driving causing death and four counts of causing serious injury negligently. The alleged offences occurred in Mildura, a regional area in Victoria, and the case was heard in the County Court of Victoria. The primary issue before the court was the appropriate venue for the jury trial. The prosecution sought to hold the trial in Melbourne, while the defence argued for the trial to take place in Mildura.

The court considered various factors in determining the appropriate venue for the trial. These included the potential impact on the witnesses and the community, the availability of a suitable jury pool, and the need to ensure a fair trial for the accused. The court noted that Mildura was a small community where the accused and many of the witnesses were well-known, which could potentially prejudice the jury pool. Furthermore, the court found that there was a sufficient number of people in the Melbourne area who could serve as impartial jurors. The court also considered the logistics of conducting a trial in Mildura, including the availability of suitable court facilities.

After weighing these considerations, the court ruled that the jury trial should be held in Melbourne. However, to accommodate the interests of the community in Mildura and the witnesses, the court ordered that the trial be videocast to Mildura. This would allow the community to observe the proceedings and ensure that the trial was conducted fairly and transparently. The court also made orders to facilitate the attendance of witnesses from Mildura at the trial in Melbourne.

The court's decision was based on a careful consideration of the relevant factors and the need to balance the interests of all parties involved. The ruling ensured that the accused would receive a fair trial while also taking into account the impact of the trial on the community and witnesses. The orders made by the court facilitated the conduct of the trial in Melbourne while also allowing the community in Mildura to observe the proceedings.

Orders