DPP v Towle (Ruling no 8)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1460 of 2007

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

THOMAS GRAHAM TOWLE

Ruling No. 8

JUDGE:	CUMMINS J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF RULING:	26 February 2008
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Towle (Ruling No 8)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2008] VSC 265

---

Criminal law and procedure – failing immediately to stop motor vehicle – recklessly placing children in danger of serious injury – case to answer.

---

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. 8

HIS HONOUR:

I consider on the basis of the evidence led and inferences properly opened upon evidence available to be accepted by a jury and applying the standard of proof applicable to a "no case" submission, that there is a case for the accused to answer first on Count 11, failing to immediately stop the vehicle, and on Counts 13 and 14, recklessly placing Samantha and Thomas in danger of serious injury.

Accordingly, I rule there is a case to answer. I will publish my reasons.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Director of Public Prosecutions v Towle, the respondent was charged with reckless conduct placing children in danger of serious injury under section 320(2)(b) of the Criminal Code Act 1995. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The dispute centred on whether the prosecution had established a prima facie case against the respondent for recklessly placing children in danger of serious injury by failing to stop the vehicle immediately when it became apparent that the children were unrestrained.

The court was required to determine whether the evidence presented was sufficient to establish that the respondent knew that the children were unrestrained, and that there was a real risk of serious injury to them if the vehicle did not stop immediately. The issue also involved whether the respondent's conduct, if any, amounted to recklessness under the statute. The court examined the definition of recklessness and the elements necessary to prove the offence.

The court found that the prosecution had presented evidence that the respondent knew the children were unrestrained and that there was a real risk of serious injury if the vehicle did not stop. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to establish a prima facie case of reckless conduct placing children in danger of serious injury. The court held that the respondent's knowledge of the children's unrestrained status and the associated risk of serious injury, combined with the failure to stop the vehicle, amounted to recklessness. The court ruled that the case was suitable for determination by a jury.

The court ordered that the matter proceed to trial before a jury. The respondent was to be informed of the charges and the nature of the evidence against them. The court also issued directions for the conduct of the trial, including the admissibility of evidence and the application of legal principles.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established