Police v Couturauo - [2010] NTMC 13

CITATION: Police v Couturauo [2010] NTMC 013

PARTIES: LEIGH CAHILL

ROSINIA COUTURAUO

TITLE OF COURT: Summary Jurisdiction

JURISDICTION: Criminal

FILE NO(s): 20908745

DELIVERED ON: 26.2.10

DELIVERED AT: Darwin

HEARING DATE(s): 17.2.10

JUDGMENT OF: Mr Daynor Trigg SM

CATCHWORDS:
Regulation 18 – Traffic Regulations
Drive without Due Care
Virgo v Elding [1939] SASR 294
Dayman v Gill [1941] SASR 208
Milkins v Roberts [1949] SASR 251
R v Little (1976) 14 SASR 556
Howie v SA Police BC9300402

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
Prosecution: Mr Tierney
Defendant: Mr Lawrence

Solicitors:
Prosecution: Summary Prosecutions
Defendant: Bill Piper

Judgment category classification: B
Judgment ID number: [2010] NTMC 013
Number of paragraphs: 78

IN THE COURT OF SUMMARY JURISDICTION
AT DARWIN IN THE NORTHERN
TERRITORY OF AUSTRALIA

No. 20908745
[2010] NTMC 013

BETWEEN:

LEIGH CAHILL
Complainant

AND:

ROSINIA COUTURAUO
Defendant

REASONS FOR DECISION

(Delivered 26 February 2010)

Mr Daynor Trigg SM:
1. The defendant was charged on complaint taken on the 1st day of April 2009 with the following two charges:
On the 13th November 2008
At Darwin in the Northern Territory of Australia
1. drove a vehicle, namely a Darwin Bus Service Scania Volgren Articulated bus NT NTGMO8122, on a road, namely McMillans Road, and whilst turning right at an intersection, namely Meuller Road, failed to give way to any oncoming vehicle that was going straight ahead at the intersection:
Contrary to Rule 75(5)(b) of the Australian Road Rules.
AND FURTHER
On the 13th November 2008
At Darwin in the Northern Territory of Australia
2. drove a vehicle, namely a Darwin Bus Service Scania Volgren Articulated bus NT NTGMO8122, on a road, namely intersection of McMillans Road and Meuller Road, without due care:
Contrary to Regulation 18 of the Traffic Regulations.
2. The matter commenced before me on 26/2/10, but before the charges were read Mr Lawrence, of counsel, submitted that the two charges were duplicitous, and accordingly the prosecution should elect which charge they wished to pursue. Mr Tierney, who appeared to prosecute the matter, did not seek to dispute this submission. Accordingly, I advised Mr Tierney that he would need to elect at the close of the prosecution case (rather than before he read the charges, as requested by Mr Lawrence) which charge he wished to pursue.
3. Accordingly, both charges were then read and the defendant entered a plea of not guilty to both charges.
4. In relation to charge 2 Mr Lawrence had sought particulars, and at the time of reading charge 2 Mr Tierney read the following particulars onto the record, namely:
Failed to see a vehicle oncoming and/or failed to judge the safe distance of oncoming vehicle prior to making a turn.
5. The only evidence of the details of the bus (as per the details in the charges) comes from ExP3 which was a photo of the damage to the bus. From this I can see that it is an articulated bus. I can not tell the make or type of bus. I can make out that the…

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 Couturauo

Details

AGLC: Police v Coututauo [2010] NTMC 13
Case: [2010] NTMC 13
Decision Date: 26/02/2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Police v Couturauo, the defendant, Rosinia Couturauo, was charged with driving without due care and attention, contrary to Regulation 18 of the Traffic Regulations. The case was heard in the Court of Summary Jurisdiction at Darwin in the Northern Territory of Australia. The defendant, a bus driver, was accused of failing to give way to an oncoming vehicle while turning right at an intersection. The court had to determine whether the defendant drove without due care and attention, as defined by the Traffic Regulations and relevant case law.

The court examined the evidence and found that the defendant did not allow sufficient time for the rear of the articulated bus to fully clear the road, leading to a collision with an oncoming car. However, the court also noted that the driver of the oncoming car did not take any evasive action, and the defendant's error in judgment could have been exacerbated by the other driver's lack of action. The court held that driving without due care means driving in a manner that does not meet the standard of a reasonably prudent driver in the given circumstances.

Based on the evidence, the court found that while the defendant did not drive with reasonable care and skill on that occasion, there was a lingering doubt as to whether her actions constituted driving without due care. Consequently, the court was unable to be satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt that the defendant drove without due care, and she was found not guilty of the charge. The defendant was discharged, and the court proceeded to hear counsel on the questions of costs and any consequential matters.

Orders