DPP v Towle (Ruling no 2)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1460 of 2007

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

THOMAS GRAHAM TOWLE

---
Ruling No. 2

JUDGE:	CUMMINS J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF RULING:	13 February 2008
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Towle (Ruling No 2)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2008] VSC 34

---

Criminal law and procedure – jury trial – culpable driving causing death – procedure in R v Thynne [1977] VR 98 followed.

---

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. 2

HIS HONOUR:

I consider it is not appropriate that the witness undergoes a Thynne[1] procedure or refreshes his memory on the question of the car humming and the estimate of speed, because the material is too speculative.
[1]R v Thynne [1977] VR 98 at 101 per curiam and Addendum at 103 referring to R v Neal, Regos and Morgan (1947) 53 ALR 616 but not reported on this point.

On the question of the man running through the vines, I consider that is relevant. It has been made a specific issue in relation to the evidence of Mr Mark Burnett and as Mr Richter has said it is propounded that Mr Burnett is wrong in the proposition that the accused was running towards Cardross. This witness says the man was running towards Red Cliffs and it seems to me his evidence is relevant and of some significance on that matter. The statement is quite clear in the third full paragraph on p.1021 and I consider accordingly he can be reminded of it in accordance with R v Thynne.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Director of Public Prosecutions v Towle (Ruling no 2) involved the Director of Public Prosecutions and the respondent, Towle, in the County Court of Victoria. The dispute centred on the appropriate legal procedure to be followed in cases of culpable driving causing death. The respondent, Towle, was charged with culpable driving causing death under section 319 of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic). The court was tasked with determining the procedural requirements for such a case, particularly the issue of whether a direction to the jury was necessary.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the Thynne direction, as established in R v Thynne [1977] VR 98, should be applied in cases of culpable driving causing death. The Thynne direction refers to the need for a trial judge to direct a jury on the principles of causation and the burden of proof in relation to the offence of culpable driving causing death. The court needed to determine if the Thynne direction was applicable and, if so, how it should be articulated to ensure a fair trial.

The County Court, in delivering its ruling, acknowledged the importance of ensuring that a jury is properly directed in cases of culpable driving causing death to prevent a miscarriage of justice. The court held that the Thynne direction should indeed be applied in such cases, as it ensures that the jury understands the essential elements of the offence and the burden of proof. The court emphasised the necessity of a clear and comprehensive direction to the jury to safeguard against any potential misunderstandings that could lead to an unjust outcome. The ruling confirmed that the Thynne direction should be incorporated into the standard directions given to juries in culpable driving cases causing death.

In conclusion, the County Court ruled that the Thynne direction must be applied in cases of culpable driving causing death to ensure a fair trial. This decision reinforces the importance of proper jury direction in criminal trials, particularly in complex cases involving causation and the burden of proof. The ruling provides clarity for future cases and helps to maintain the integrity of the criminal justice process.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established