Legal Research
Cases
Pike v Becker

Pike v Becker

Case [2012] WASC 397 26 October 2012

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CRIMINAL

CITATION: PIKE -v- BECKER [2012] WASC 397

CORAM: EM HEENAN J

HEARD: 1 JUNE 2012

DELIVERED : 26 OCTOBER 2012

FILE NO/S: SJA 1063 of 2011

MATTER :Criminal Appeals Act 2004 Part 2
and
Prosecution Notice Number PE 59722/09 in the Magistrates Court of Western Australia at Perth

BETWEEN: CHRISTOPHER JAMES PIKE
Appellant
AND
ALAN WILLIAM BECKER
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :  MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram  :MAGISTRATE G MIGNACCA-RANDAZZO
File No  :PE 59722 of 2009

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Dangerous driving occasioning death - Application for leave to appeal against conviction - Car colliding with rear of broken down truck left partly on edge of freeway at night - No lights from parked vehicle visible to passing motorists - Allegation that driver fell asleep at wheel - Long journey at night - Allegations of driver fatigue - Competing inferences available - Need for adverse inference to be only reasonable inference - Exact cause of accident not established

Legislation:

Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA)
Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA)

Result:

Leave to appeal granted except for part of ground 4
Appeal allowed
Conviction quashed and orders set aside
Charge dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant: In person
Respondent: Mr J Newton-Palmer

Solicitors:

Appellant: In person
Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions (WA)

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Barca v The Queen [1975] HCA 42; (1975) 133 CLR 82
Chamberlain v The Queen (No 2) [1984] HCA 7; (1984) 153 CLR 521
Dennis v Watt (1942) 43 SR (NSW) 32
Fox v Percy [2003] HCA 22; (2003) 214 CLR 118; (2003) 197 ALR 201
Harvey v Matthews [1999] WASCA 58
Jiminez v The Queen [1992] HCA 14; (1992) 173 CLR 572; (1992) 106 ALR 162
Kaighin v The Queen (1990) 1 WAR 390; (1990) 11 MVR 119
King v The Queen [2012] HCA 24; (2012) 86 ALJR 833; (2012) 288 ALR 565
Kroon v The Queen (1990) 55 SASR 476; (1990) 12 MVR 483; (1990) 52 A Crim R 15
Lodge v Magorian [2012] WASCA 90; (2012) 60 MVR 408
Lyford v Wride [2009] WASC 106
M v The Queen [1994] HCA 63; (1994) 181 CLR 487
Martinez v The State of Western Australia [2007] WASCA 143
McBride v The Queen [1966] HCA 22; (1966) 115 CLR 44
McPherson v Lucas [2008] WASCA 56; (2008) 49 MVR 429
Morris v The Queen [1987] HCA 50; (1987) 163 CLR 454
Mule v The Queen [2005] HCA 49; (2004) 221 ALR 85; (2005) 156 A Crim R 203
R v Hinz [1972] Qd R 272
Roads and Traffic Authority of NSW v Dederer [2007] HCA 42; (2007) 234 CLR 330
Samuels v The State of Western Australia [2005] WASCA 193; (2005) 30 WAR 473
The State of Western Australia v Gibbs [2009] WASCA 7; (2009) 52 MVR 21
TKWJ v The…

Details

AGLC: Pike v Becker [2012] WASC 397
Case: [2012] WASC 397
Decision Date: 26 OCTOBER 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties in this case were Pike, the appellant, and Becker, the respondent. The dispute involved the conviction of Pike for dangerous driving resulting in death, after his car collided with the rear of a broken down truck left on the edge of a freeway at night. The High Court of Australia was tasked with determining whether Pike should be granted leave to appeal against his conviction. The legal issues that the court was required to decide included whether Pike's actions constituted dangerous driving and if the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction. The court also needed to assess the reasonableness of the inference that Pike fell asleep at the wheel, and whether there was a competing inference available.

The court considered the circumstances surrounding the accident, including the lack of visible lights from the parked vehicle, the long journey Pike had undertaken at night, and the allegations of driver fatigue. The court held that for a conviction of dangerous driving occasioning death, it was necessary to establish that the accused's conduct was dangerous and that it caused the death. The court noted that in this case, the exact cause of the accident was not established, and there were competing inferences available. The court emphasised that for an adverse inference to be drawn, it must be the only reasonable inference available. In this instance, the court found that it was not the only reasonable inference that Pike fell asleep at the wheel, and therefore, the conviction could not be sustained.

The High Court of Australia ultimately decided that Pike should be granted leave to appeal against his conviction. The court found that the evidence was not sufficient to support the conviction, as there was a competing inference available, and the adverse inference was not the only reasonable one. As a result, the conviction was quashed, and Pike was acquitted of the charge of dangerous driving occasioning death. The court's decision highlights the importance of establishing the exact cause of an accident and ensuring that the inferences drawn from the evidence are reasonable and supported by the facts.

Orders