Gillett v R

The appellant, Gillett, appealed against his conviction and sentence in relation to charges of driving in a manner dangerous to cause the death of another person. The appeal was heard in the High Court of Australia. The incident in question occurred when Gillett, who suffered from epilepsy and sleep apnoea, lost consciousness while driving, resulting in a collision that caused the death of a passenger. The primary issues before the court were whether the epileptic seizure was a novus actus interveniens, whether the driving was objectively dangerous, and whether the trial judge erred in considering certain factors in assessing the objective dangerousness of the driving.

The court addressed several complex legal questions. Firstly, it considered whether the epileptic seizure was an independent intervening act that broke the chain of causation between the appellant's driving and the death. The court found that while the seizure was an unforeseeable event, it did not sever the causal link between the dangerous driving and the death. Secondly, the court examined the meaning of "substantial risk" in the context of driving dangerously. It concluded that an epileptic seizure, even if unforeseeable, constituted a substantial risk while driving, particularly when the driver was aware of their condition. The court further found that the trial judge did not err in considering the appellant's awareness of the risk, despite the unforeseeable nature of the seizure. Additionally, the court discussed the relevance of sleep apnoea in assessing the objective dangerousness of driving and whether the trial judge appropriately weighed the expert evidence. Finally, the court considered the admissibility and relevance of a document containing guidelines for assessing fitness to drive in the context of the appellant's failure to disclose his epilepsy when renewing his licence.

The High Court allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction and sentence, and ordered a retrial. The court found that the trial judge had erred in several respects, including in assessing the objective dangerousness of the driving and in considering the failure to disclose epilepsy in the RTA form. The court also held that the trial judge should have admitted the document containing guidelines and standards for assessing fitness to drive, as it was relevant to the assessment of dangerousness. The decision highlights the importance of considering all relevant factors, including medical conditions, when assessing the dangerousness of driving and the appropriate weight to give to expert evidence.