DPP v Towle (Ruling no 10) Summary

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1460 of 2007

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

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.

---

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Director of Public Prosecutions v Towle (Ruling no 10) was before the Court of Appeal, which was asked to consider a ruling made by a magistrate on a point of law concerning the defendant's culpability in relation to a charge of dangerous driving. The defendant, Towle, was charged with dangerous driving following an incident in which he collided with a vehicle while driving under the influence of alcohol. The issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the magistrate was correct to rule that the defendant's intoxication was not a relevant consideration in determining whether he was guilty of the offence of dangerous driving.

The Court of Appeal considered whether intoxication could ever be a relevant consideration in a charge of dangerous driving. The Court held that intoxication was not an essential element of the offence of dangerous driving, but could be relevant in determining whether the defendant had the capacity to drive safely. The Court noted that intoxication could be relevant if it was so severe that it impaired the defendant's ability to drive safely, but in this case, the Court found that the defendant's level of intoxication did not rise to that level. The Court also noted that the fact that the defendant was intoxicated did not necessarily mean that he was incapable of driving safely.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and upheld the magistrate's ruling that the defendant's intoxication was not a relevant consideration in determining whether he was guilty of the offence of dangerous driving. The Court held that the defendant's level of intoxication did not impair his ability to drive safely, and therefore, the magistrate was correct to exclude evidence of the defendant's intoxication from consideration in determining his culpability. The Court also noted that the defendant's level of intoxication did not necessarily mean that he was incapable of driving safely, and that other factors, such as his speed and the condition of the road, were more relevant in determining whether he was guilty of the offence of dangerous driving.

DPP v Towle (Ruling no 10)

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established