KOLTASZ -v- THE QUEEN [2003] WASCA 38
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2003] WASCA 38 | |
| COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL | |||
| Case No: | CCA:202/2002 | 5 FEBRUARY 2003 | |
| Coram: | MALCOLM CJ ANDERSON J MILLER J | 12/03/03 | |
| 24 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Appeals dismissed | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | DEAN MARK KOLTASZ THE QUEEN |
Catchwords: | Criminal law Dangerous driving causing death and grievous bodily harm Whether verdict unsafe and/or unsatisfactory Adequacy of summing up Adequacy of directions when trial Judge redirecting the jury Whether necessity to refer to all arguments advanced on behalf of defence Admissibility of expert evidence Criminal law and procedure Sentencing Dangerous driving causing death and grievous bodily harm Vehicle running off road Driver affected by alcohol and fatigue Sentence of imprisonment Whether sentence should have been suspended |
Legislation: | Road Traffic Act 1974, s 59(2)(b) Road Traffic Code 2000, s 33 |
Case References: | Ainsworth v "D" (A Child) (1992) 7 WAR 102 Dinsdale v R (2000) 202 CLR 321 Hoy & Ors v The Queen [2002] WASCA 275 Jones v The Queen (1997) 191 CLR 439 Ladd v Debnam, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980672; 23 November 1998 Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665 M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487 Parker v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 960740; 20 December 1996 R v Ali (1982) 6 A Crim R 161 R v Guilfoyle (1973) 2 All ER 844 R v Jurisic (1998) 101 A Crim R 259 R v Stebbings (1990) 4 WAR 538 Wood v The Queen [2002] WASCA 95 Chamberlain (No 2) (1984) 153 CLR 521 Davies & Cody (1937) 57 CLR 170 Dinsdale v R [2001] 175 ALR 315 Gipp v R (1998) 194 CLR 106 Hodges v Hagan [2001] WASCA 41 Jiminez v The Queen [1992] 173 CLR 572 Kahatapitye v R, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980232; 1 May 1998 R & Osenkowski (1982) 30 SADR 212 Shepherd v R (No 2) (1990) 170 CLR 573 Smith v R [1976] WAR 97 Vrisakis v Australian Securities Commission (1993) 9 WAR 395 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : KOLTASZ -v- THE QUEEN [2003] WASCA 38 CORAM : MALCOLM CJ
- ANDERSON J
MILLER J
- CCA 207 of 2002
- Appellant
AND
THE QUEEN
Respondent
Catchwords:
Criminal law - Dangerous driving causing death and grievous bodily harm - Whether verdict unsafe and/or unsatisfactory - Adequacy of summing up - Adequacy of directions when trial Judge redirecting the jury - Whether necessity to refer to all arguments advanced on behalf of defence - Admissibility of expert evidence
Criminal law and procedure - Sentencing - Dangerous driving causing death and grievous bodily harm - Vehicle running off road - Driver affected by alcohol and fatigue -…
Continue reading Koltasz v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Koltasz v The Queen [2003] WASCA 38
- Case
- [2003] WASCA 38
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appellant was convicted of dangerous driving causing death and grievous bodily harm following a car accident where a vehicle ran off the road. The deceased was killed, and another person suffered serious injuries. The matter came before the High Court of Australia where the appellant challenged the conviction and sentence on multiple grounds. The appellant argued that the trial judge's summing up and jury directions were inadequate and that the judge did not adequately refer to all defence arguments. The appellant also claimed that the admission of expert evidence was improper, and that the sentence was excessive.
The High Court considered the arguments regarding the adequacy of the summing up and jury directions, examining whether the trial judge had correctly outlined the law and provided sufficient directions to the jury. The Court also assessed the necessity of referring to all defence arguments in the summing up and whether the failure to do so rendered the verdict unsafe or unsatisfactory. The Court examined the admissibility of the expert evidence, considering whether its inclusion was justified and whether it played a significant role in the jury's decision. The Court further reviewed the sentencing process, determining whether the trial judge appropriately exercised discretion in imposing the sentence, and whether the sentence should have been suspended.
The Court found that the trial judge's summing up and jury directions were adequate, as they correctly outlined the law and provided sufficient guidance to the jury. The Court held that the trial judge was not required to refer to all defence arguments, and that the omission did not render the verdict unsafe or unsatisfactory. The Court also determined that the expert evidence was admissible and appropriately considered by the jury. The Court concluded that the trial judge exercised discretion appropriately in imposing the sentence, and that there were no grounds to suspend the sentence. The Court dismissed the appeals, affirming the conviction and sentence.
The Court's final orders were to dismiss the appeals, thereby affirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court.
The High Court considered the arguments regarding the adequacy of the summing up and jury directions, examining whether the trial judge had correctly outlined the law and provided sufficient directions to the jury. The Court also assessed the necessity of referring to all defence arguments in the summing up and whether the failure to do so rendered the verdict unsafe or unsatisfactory. The Court examined the admissibility of the expert evidence, considering whether its inclusion was justified and whether it played a significant role in the jury's decision. The Court further reviewed the sentencing process, determining whether the trial judge appropriately exercised discretion in imposing the sentence, and whether the sentence should have been suspended.
The Court found that the trial judge's summing up and jury directions were adequate, as they correctly outlined the law and provided sufficient guidance to the jury. The Court held that the trial judge was not required to refer to all defence arguments, and that the omission did not render the verdict unsafe or unsatisfactory. The Court also determined that the expert evidence was admissible and appropriately considered by the jury. The Court concluded that the trial judge exercised discretion appropriately in imposing the sentence, and that there were no grounds to suspend the sentence. The Court dismissed the appeals, affirming the conviction and sentence.
The Court's final orders were to dismiss the appeals, thereby affirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeals dismissed
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.