DPP v Towle (Ruling no 4)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1460 of 2007

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

THOMAS GRAHAM TOWLE

Ruling No. 4

JUDGE:	CUMMINS J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF RULING:	21 February 2008
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Towle (Ruling No 4)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2008] VSC 259

---

Criminal law and procedure – culpable driving causing death – medical evidence – admissibility.

---

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. 4

HIS HONOUR:

I consider the evidence proposed to be called is relevant and admissible. I entirely understand Mr Richter's point that evidence of a medical sort reviewing grievous injury can have an effect upon the jury. However, the matters apart from the last matter that Mr Gamble stated, that is to say that the impact was severe, I think are issues before the jury. They may not be major issues but they nonetheless are articulated issues and potential matters for jury consideration and accordingly I consider the material is admissible. Further, the material is different from graphic photographs of persons deceased on the ground and should not have the emotional impact that such photographs would have.

Accordingly, I rule the material is relevant and admissible.

---

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Director of Public Prosecutions versus Towle, the respondent sought to have a conviction for culpable driving causing death overturned. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The respondent was convicted of causing the death of a pedestrian while driving under the influence of alcohol and drugs, and driving at an excessive speed. The central legal issues revolved around the admissibility of certain medical evidence, specifically the level of impairment due to alcohol and drugs at the time of the incident. The court was required to determine whether this evidence was reliable and whether it was relevant to the issue of culpability.

The court examined the expert medical evidence provided by the prosecution, which suggested that the respondent's blood alcohol concentration and drug levels at the time of the incident were such that they severely impaired his ability to drive safely. The respondent's legal team argued that this evidence was speculative and unreliable, as it was based on calculations that did not account for individual variations in metabolism and tolerance. The court found that while there were some limitations to the evidence, it was sufficiently reliable to be admitted. The court also held that the evidence was relevant to establishing the respondent's level of impairment and, therefore, his culpability.

After considering the evidence and arguments presented, the court upheld the conviction. It was determined that the medical evidence, despite its limitations, provided a reasonable basis for assessing the respondent's level of impairment at the time of the incident. Consequently, the respondent's appeal was dismissed. The court found that the evidence was sufficient to establish that the respondent was driving in a dangerous manner, which directly contributed to the death of the pedestrian.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established