DELIVERED ON: 19 March 2015 DELIVERED AT: Hobart HEARING DATE: 10 November 2014 JUDGMENT OF: Tennent, Wood and Estcourt JJ
CATCHWORDS:
Traffic Law – Offences – Particular offences – Negligent driving – Other matters – Charge of causing death by negligent driving – Causation – Test to be applied.
Counsel: Appellant: D Coates SC and S Nicholson Respondent: C Gunson Solicitors: Appellant: Acting Director of Public Prosecutions Respondent: Fitzgerald & Browne
Judgment Number: [2015] TASFC 4 Number of paragraphs: 105
Serial No 4/2015
File No 547/2014
SERGEANT RICHARD LANE v BRADLEY CHAPLIN
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT FULL COURT
TENNENT J WOOD J ESTCOURT J 19 March 2015
Orders of the Court:
Appeal allowed.
Orders of Chief Justice made 18 June 2014 quashed.
Serial No 4/2015
File No 547/2014
SERGEANT RICHARD LANE v BRADLEY CHAPLIN
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT FULL COURT
TENNENT J 19 March 2015
On 29 February 2012, Ashley Edmonds ("Ashley"), then aged 13, was hit by a vehicle as she crossed a road at Karanja and was killed. She had just alighted from a school bus. The driver of the vehicle which hit Ashley was Bradley Chaplin ("the respondent"). The respondent was charged with causing death by negligent driving contrary to the Traffic Act 1925, s 32(2A). In the alternative to that charge, he was charged with driving without due care and attention contrary to the Australian Road Rules 2009, r 367(1). He was also charged with speeding. The respondent pleaded not guilty. On 11 December 2013, Magistrate McTaggart found that the respondent's negligent driving caused Ashley's death. Her Honour also found that the facts supported a finding of guilt of both that and the alternative charge. The respondent was also found guilty of speeding: see Lane v Chaplin [2013] TASMC 46.
The respondent sought a review of that decision. On 18 June 2014, the learned Chief Justice allowed the motion to review, set aside the orders of Magistrate McTaggart, and dismissed the count of causing death by negligent driving: see Chaplin v Lane [2014] TASSC 32. These reasons relate to an appeal from that decision.
The appeal has been brought by the State. The sole ground of appeal is that:
"The learned Chief Justice erred in law in finding that it was not open to the learned Magistrate to conclude as a matter of law that the defendant's driving was negligent and causative of the death of Ashley Edmonds."
The decision of the Chief Justice
His Honour summarised the facts of the case and made reference to some of the evidence. At [8] he dealt with the learned magistrate's reasoning. He said:
"Her…
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 Lane v Chaplin
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Lane v Chaplin [2015] TASFC 4
Case
[2015] TASFC 4
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appeal in *Lane v Chaplin* concerned a charge of causing death by negligent driving. The appellant, Mr. Lane, was convicted of this offence by the Chief Justice.
The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was the correct test for causation in the context of negligent driving causing death. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the Chief Justice had applied the appropriate legal principles when assessing whether Mr. Lane's negligent driving had caused the death of the victim.
The Court of Appeal found that the Chief Justice had erred in applying the test for causation. The court held that the correct test required the prosecution to prove that the negligent driving was a "substantial cause" of the death. The Chief Justice had, however, applied a test that focused on whether the negligent driving was a "contributing cause" without adequately considering the substantiality of that contribution. This misapplication of the legal test led to the conviction being quashed.
Consequently, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and quashed the orders of the Chief Justice made on 18 June 2014.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Appeal allowed.
2. Orders of Chief Justice made 18 June 2014 quashed.