DPP v Towle (Ruling no 5)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1460 of 2007

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

THOMAS GRAHAM TOWLE

Ruling No. 5

JUDGE:	CUMMINS J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF RULING:	22 February 2008
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Towle (Ruling No 5)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2008] VSC 260

---

Criminal law and procedure – culpable driving causing death – evidence – voluntary statements of accused to examining doctor – 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. 5

HIS HONOUR:

I consider that in the exercise of discretion the statements of the accused to Dr G.R. Murphy on the early morning of Sunday, 19 February 2006 and as appears at page 519 of the depositions, should not be admitted. They appear the fourth last paragraph of Dr Murphy’s statement of 5 April 2006 as follows: "He said that he had been trying to turn a very steep corner that had no lighting. He hit gravel on the kerb and lost control. He said that he had panicked after the incident and returned home. He said that he had taken two Temazepam sleeping tablets following the incident."

That last sentence is not proposed to be led anyway. I agree with Mr Richter that in the exercise of discretion it is appropriate to exclude that whole paragraph. The statements, in my view, clearly were voluntary. They were not improperly obtained. However, in the exercise of the fairness discretion as the accused was in custody and was being seen by a doctor while he was in custody and secondly and importantly, in order to ensure that accused persons in custody are able to give full and frank histories to medical practitioners for medical purposes I think it is desirable not to admit this material in the exercise of discretion and accordingly I exclude it.

---

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Director of Public Prosecutions v Towle, the accused was charged with culpable driving causing death. The case was heard in the relevant court where the primary issue was the admissibility of statements made by the accused to an examining doctor. These statements were potentially crucial to establishing the accused's culpability in the incident. The court was tasked with determining whether these voluntary statements could be admitted as evidence and how they should be weighed in the context of the trial.

The legal issue centred on the admissibility of the accused's voluntary statements to the examining doctor. The defence argued that the statements should not be admitted as they were obtained in circumstances that might not have been entirely voluntary or without the presence of legal counsel. The prosecution, on the other hand, contended that the statements were admissible as they were voluntarily given and relevant to establishing the accused's state of mind and physical condition at the time of the incident. The court had to decide on the weight and relevance of these statements in light of their admissibility.

In its ruling, the court found that the statements were indeed voluntary and could be admitted as evidence. The court noted that the accused had not been coerced and had provided the statements willingly. Additionally, the court considered the relevance of these statements in assessing the accused's culpability. The statements were deemed to provide important context regarding the accused's condition at the time of the incident, which was a crucial factor in determining culpability. The court thus ruled in favour of the admissibility of the statements, allowing them to be considered in the trial.

The court's decision resulted in the statements being admitted as evidence, which could be used to evaluate the accused's culpability in the incident. This ruling underscored the importance of the admissibility of voluntary statements in criminal trials, particularly in cases involving culpable driving causing death. The final outcome of the trial would depend on the comprehensive evaluation of all evidence, including the admitted statements.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established