Police v Alfaro - [2025] ACTMC 15

MAGISTRATES COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	Police v Alfaro
Citation:	[2025] ACTMC 15
Hearing Date:	14 August 2025
Decision Date:	16 September 2025
Before:	Magistrate Temby
Decision:	See [62]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCING – judgment and punishment – negligent driving occasioning death – heavy vehicle
Legislation Cited:	Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Act 1999 (ACT), s 6 Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), s 29 Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT)
Cases Cited:	Barbaro v The Queen [2012] VSCA 288 DPP v Spong [2018] ACTCA 37 Lutz v KJ [2016] ACTSC 200 Omari v Moore [2013] ACTSC 9 Present v The Queen [2011] NSWCCA 25 R v Hamdan (No 3) [2022] ACTSC 326 R v Creighton (Unreported, Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, 28 October 2010) R v Chancellor [2019] ACTSC 191 R v Livas (No 2) [2020] ACTSC 116 R v Murray [2008] ACTSC 115 The Police v Hutchison (Unreported, Magistrates Court of the Australian Capital Territory, 4 August 2022) The Queen v Kilic [2016] HCA 48 Wilkins v Hague [2011] ACTSC 189
Parties:	Erin Gillies (Informant) John Alfaro ( Defendant)
Representation:	Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions Tim Sharman Solicitors ( Defendant)
File Number:	CC 4238 of 2025

MAGISTRATE TEMBY:

Facts

1․On 11 March 2025 the Defendant, Mr John Alfaro, was the driver of a Transport Canberra public bus undertaking a route in Nicholls. Nearing 8am he was in a queue of vehicles on Gold Creek Road between the northbound and southbound lanes of the Barton Highway. The traffic in the southbound lanes was heavy but flowing well.
2․Mr Alfaro was waiting to cross the southbound lanes of the Barton Highway into Gold Creek. There was both a stop sign and stop line at the intersection of Gold Creek Road and the Barton Highway.
3․Once Mr Alfaro was the second vehicle in the queue, he waited at least two minutes and 48 seconds to proceed. While waiting, Mr Alfaro looked to his left (in the direction of oncoming traffic from the southbound lanes of the Barton Highway) several times. However, in the 10 seconds prior to him moving forward to cross over the Barton Highway he did not. He looked down and rubbed his eyes.
4․Noticing the car in front of him had left the stop line on Gold Creek Road to cross the southbound lanes of the Barton Highway, Mr Alfaro followed two seconds afterwards. He looked left as he accelerated towards the stop line, but he did not stop at the stop line to make sure that there were no oncoming vehicles. As he crossed the stop line he stopped looking left and looked straight ahead.
5․Mr Alfaro accepts that he did not undertake a sufficient check to ensure that there were no vehicles close by and that he did not stop at the stop line as he was legally required to do. The consequence of those failures was tragic.
6․Ms Uqasha Imran was riding her motorcycle southbound on the Barton Highway at…

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 Police v Alfaro

Details

AGLC: Police v Alfaro [2025] ACTMC 15
Case: [2025] ACTMC 15
Decision Date: 16 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Police v Alfaro involved the state and the accused, Alfaro, before the Court of Appeal. Alfaro had been convicted for negligent driving causing death after his heavy vehicle collided with another vehicle, resulting in the death of the driver. Alfaro appealed his conviction and sentence, arguing that the primary judge erred in his assessment of the appropriate penalty. The court had to decide whether the penalty imposed was manifestly excessive or inadequate, considering the principles of sentencing and the specific circumstances of the case.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed by the trial judge was manifestly excessive or inadequate. Alfaro argued that the sentence did not adequately reflect the gravity of the offence or the circumstances surrounding the incident. The state contended that the sentence was appropriate given the severity of the consequences of Alfaro's actions. The court had to weigh the principles of sentencing against the facts of the case, including the nature of the offence, the culpability of the offender, and the impact of the crime on the victim's family.

The Court of Appeal determined that the sentence was not manifestly excessive or inadequate. The court found that the trial judge had considered the relevant factors in arriving at the sentence and that the penalty reflected the seriousness of the offence. The court noted that the collision resulted in the death of the victim and highlighted the need for appropriate deterrence and denunciation. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld. The court found that the sentence was commensurate with the gravity of the offence and the impact on the victim's family.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [62]

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.