Police v Hingu - [2024] ACTMC 15

MAGISTRATES COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	Police v Hingu
Citation:	[2024] ACTMC 15
Hearing Dates:	18 June 2024
Decision Date:	29 July 2024
Before:	Magistrate Temby
Decision:	I find the Defendant guilty of the offence charged.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – DRIVING OFFENCES – Aggravated furious, reckless or dangerous driving – meaning of “reckless”k – meaning of “dangerous” - Vulnerable road user - meaning of “pedestrian”
Legislation Cited:	Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Act 1999, s6, s6(1)(a)(c), s7,s7(2), s7A, s7A(1)(a)(vi) Road Transport (General) Act 1999 Road Transport (Road Rules) Regulation 2017, s12, s14, s18 Legislation Act 2001, s139(1) Transport Legislation Amendment Bill 2014
Cases Cited:	Kane v Dureau [1911] VLR 293 Monaghan v Calatzis [2021] ACTSC 4 McBride v The Queen (1966) 115 CLR 44 The King v Coventry (1938) 59 CLR 633
Parties:	Jeffery Evan Thomas Jervis (Informant) Krishna Hingu ( Defendant)
Representation:	Solicitors Director of Public Prosecutions R & J Lawyers ( Defendant)
File Numbers:	CC 3089/2024 CC 2340/2024

MAGISTRATE TEMBY:

Introduction

1․Early one summer’s morning, Ms Ko had the misfortune of standing at a bus stop when the Defendant drove a car into her. The Defendant had veered onto the wrong side of the road, mounted the curb and collided with Ms Ko, throwing her into the air. Ms Ko landed on her back and her head hit the ground.
2․Thankfully, Ms Ko’s injuries were limited to bruising to her left hip, buttocks and torso. Glass shards were also embedded in her left elbow, which had struck the Defendant’s windscreen with sufficient force to break the windscreen.
3․The Defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of negligent driving occasioning actual bodily harm (charge CC2024/2340), contrary to s 6 of the Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Act 1999 (Safety and Traffic Management Act).
4․However, the Defendant pleaded not guilty to a charge of driving recklessly, or in a way that was dangerous to the public, on a road or road related area (charge CC2024/3089), contrary to s 7 of the Safety and Traffic Management Act. A factor of aggravation for that charge that is relied on by the Prosecution, pursuant to s 7A of the Safety and Traffic Management Act, is that it is alleged that the manner of the Defendant’s driving put the safety of a vulnerable road user at risk. The Defendant disputes that that was the case.

What are the issues in dispute?

5․The key facts relevant to the determination of the proceedings were agreed between the parties. They are set out later in this judgment. A police statement through which the Defendant provided her version of events was also tendered, along with the statement of a witness and Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) footage of the incident.
6․Consistently with the Defendant’s plea of guilty to the negligent driving charge, the Defendant does not dispute that she was driving a vehicle, nor that she intended to drive a vehicle. She does not dispute that the driving occurred on a…

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 Hingu

Details

AGLC: Police v Hingu [2024] ACTMC 15
Case: [2024] ACTMC 15
Decision Date: 29 July 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant was charged with aggravated dangerous driving, specifically driving in a manner that was dangerous to a pedestrian. The matter was heard in the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria. The defendant argued that the prosecution had not proven beyond reasonable doubt that he had driven in a manner that was dangerous to a pedestrian. The legal issues before the court were whether the defendant’s driving was reckless or dangerous, and whether the term “pedestrian” included a pedestrian who was partially obscured by another vehicle. The court found that the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant drove in a manner that was dangerous to a pedestrian. The court determined that the term “pedestrian” includes a pedestrian who is partially obscured by another vehicle. The court held that the defendant’s driving was reckless because he drove without due care and attention, and that it was dangerous because it created a risk of injury or death to a pedestrian. The court found the defendant guilty of the offence charged.

Orders

Orders of the court

I find the Defendant guilty of the offence charged.

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.