DPP v Towle (Ruling no 10)
[2008] VSC 264
•5 March 2008
| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA | Not Restricted |
CRIMINAL DIVISION
No. 1460 of 2007
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| THOMAS GRAHAM TOWLE |
Ruling No. 10
JUDGE: | CUMMINS J | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF RULING: | 5 March 2008 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Towle (Ruling No 10) | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2008] VSC 264 | |
---
Criminal law and procedure – culpable driving – issue arising on evidence.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Director of Public Prosecutions | 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 |
---
Ruling No. 10
HIS HONOUR:
I am entirely unpersuaded I should make any comment to the jury one way or the other. I do not propose to argue Mr Richter's case and I do not propose to argue Mr Gamble's case.
The evidence is there loud and clear; it could not be clearer; it was always there. If counsel now are concerned about it, that is simply a forensic fact which happens in lots of trials. I am not going to hide the evidence from the jury. Nor am I going to make comments about the evidence.
As to the legal point by Mr Richter that I have reversed the onus of proof, that is a misconception of the forensic function. There is no onus of proof on the accused. I have not reversed it. There is an onus on counsel to put issues which are going to be litigated to the jury. Mr Richter went to the jury saying there was no evidence that anyone was in front of the Poulton vehicle. Two weeks earlier Mr Poulton said it twice in the most unequivocal terms and was not challenged. That is a fact of forensic life; it is not a legal reversal of the onus of proof.
---
0
0
0