Legal Research
Cases
Jatinder Panesar v The Queen

Jatinder Panesar v The Queen

Case [2020] VSCA 79 3 April 2020

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2018 0260

JATINDER PANESAR	Applicant
v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	PRIEST, KAYE and WEINBERG JJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	27 March 2020
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	3 April 2020
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2020] VSCA 79
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	DPP v Panesar (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, Judge Chettle, 5 November 2018)

---

APPEAL – Criminal – Conviction – Applicant convicted on three charges of dangerous driving causing death and two charges of dangerous driving causing serious injury – Vehicle driven by applicant collided with minibus at intersection – Applicant failed to heed warning signs and failed to give way – Three passengers in minibus died, several passengers sustained injuries – Applicant diagnosed with severe sleep apnoea after accident – Whether applicant’s driving was conscious and voluntary – Whether applicant’s dangerous driving was a substantial and significant cause of death of one of the passengers – Whether judge misdirected jury as to causation issue – Whether judge misdirected jury concerning effect of applicant’s sleep apnoea condition on his state of consciousness – Whether verdicts unreasonable or unable to be supported having regard to the evidence – Leave to appeal granted – Appeal allowed – Convictions quashed – Verdicts of acquittal entered.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr P Tehan QC with Ms C Boston	Melasecca, Kelly & Zayler
For the Respondent	Ms D Piekusis QC	Ms A Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

PRIEST JA
KAYE JA
WEINBERG JA:

On 20 June 2017, a taxi vehicle driven by the applicant collided with a minibus, which was carrying a number of elderly passengers, at the intersection of Pyke Road and Turnbull Road, Mooroopna. Following the accident, three of the elderly passengers in the bus died, and a number of the other passengers sustained injuries of varying severity.

The applicant was charged on indictment with three charges of dangerous driving causing death and three charges of dangerous driving causing serious injury. After a trial in the County Court, he was convicted on the three charges of dangerous driving causing death, and two of the charges of dangerous driving causing serious injury. He was acquitted on the sixth charge (of dangerous driving causing serious injury to Marion Gellatly). After a plea that was presented on his behalf, the applicant was sentenced to a total effective sentence of six years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of three years and six months. He seeks leave to appeal the convictions and sentence.

At the trial, it was not in issue that the driving of the applicant was dangerous. On its face, it involved a serious breach by him of the proper management or control of the vehicle and it created a real risk to the members of the public. The principal issue, in relation to each of the six charges, was whether the prosecution had established beyond reasonable doubt that that driving was conscious and voluntary. There was an additional issue in relation to charge…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Jatinder Panesar v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Jatinder Panesar v The Queen [2020] VSCA 79
Case: [2020] VSCA 79
Decision Date: 3 April 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Jatinder Panesar against The Queen, the appellant was convicted by the Supreme Court of Victoria on three charges of dangerous driving causing death and two charges of dangerous driving causing serious injury. The incident involved the appellant's vehicle colliding with a minibus at an intersection. The collision resulted in the deaths of three passengers in the minibus and injuries to several others. The appellant failed to heed warning signs and give way at the intersection. After the accident, the appellant was diagnosed with severe sleep apnoea. The central issues for determination by the court were whether the appellant's driving was conscious and voluntary, whether his dangerous driving was a substantial and significant cause of the death of one of the passengers, and whether the trial judge misdirected the jury concerning the causation issue and the effect of the appellant's sleep apnoea on his state of consciousness. Additionally, the court assessed whether the verdicts were unreasonable or could not be supported by the evidence.

The court found that the trial judge had misdirected the jury in relation to the causation issue and the effect of the appellant's sleep apnoea on his state of consciousness. The judge did not properly address the jury on the need to consider the appellant's state of consciousness at the moment of the collision, nor did the judge clarify the meaning of "substantial and significant cause" in relation to one of the deceased passengers. The court held that these misdirections rendered the verdicts unsafe and unsatisfactory. The appellant's sleep apnoea and the lack of evidence of his state of consciousness at the time of the collision meant that it could not be said that his driving was conscious and voluntary. The appeal was allowed, and the convictions were quashed. The court entered verdicts of acquittal in place of the original convictions.

The court's decision resulted in the quashing of all convictions and the entry of verdicts of acquittal. The appellant's convictions on all counts were set aside, and the jury was directed to return verdicts of not guilty on all charges. This outcome reflects the court's determination that the appellant's state of consciousness at the time of the collision was not adequately considered, and the misdirections by the trial judge necessitated a reassessment of the evidence and the verdicts.

Orders