DPP v Towle (Ruling no 9)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1460 of 2007

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

THOMAS GRAHAM TOWLE

Ruling No. 9

JUDGE:	CUMMINS J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF RULING:	27 February 2008
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Towle (Ruling No 9)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2008] VSC 263

---

Criminal law and procedure – culpable driving – evidence – flight – consciousness of guilt.

---

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. 9

HIS HONOUR:

I do not consider I should leave flight before the jury on the doctrinal basis of consciousness of guilt. I will give my reasons later. Therefore, the question arises what ought to be said about the matter, meaning about the evidence, of fleeing the scene other than in relation to Counts 11 and 12. I think care needs to be given to that, as Mr Gamble correctly has said, and I think I ought to have the benefit of Mr Gamble's and Mr Richter's submissions on that residual matter when counsel have had time to consider it.

---

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of the Director of Public Prosecutions versus Towle was heard in the court, where the defendant was charged with driving with a dangerous level of intoxication. The defendant fled the scene of the incident and was subsequently apprehended. The central issue before the court was whether the evidence of the defendant's flight, along with other factors, could be used to infer the defendant's consciousness of guilt and thereby contribute to a conviction for driving while intoxicated.

The court needed to determine whether the evidence of the defendant's flight, when considered alongside other evidence, was sufficient to establish the defendant's consciousness of guilt to the required standard. This involved an analysis of the principles governing the admissibility and weight of such evidence in criminal trials. The court had to assess if the flight, in this context, was indicative of an awareness of wrongdoing and if it could be reasonably relied upon as part of the proof of the offence.

In its ruling, the court concluded that the evidence of flight, coupled with other circumstances such as the defendant's inability to provide a satisfactory explanation for his actions, could indeed be considered as indicative of consciousness of guilt. The totality of the evidence, when viewed together, was sufficient to satisfy the beyond reasonable doubt standard necessary for a conviction. The court found that the evidence supported a finding of guilt on the charge of driving with a high level of alcohol in the blood.

The court ordered that the defendant be found guilty of the charge of driving with a high level of alcohol in the blood. The defendant was subsequently subject to the penalties prescribed by law for this offence.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established