Police v Pritchard - [2010] NSWLC 26

Local Court of New South Wales

CITATION: Police V Pritchard [2010] NSWLC 26

JURISDICTION: Criminal

PARTIES: Police
Pritchard

FILE NUMBER:

PLACE OF HEARING: Camden Local Court

DATE OF DECISION: 11/24/2010

MAGISTRATE: Magistrate Clisdell

CATCHWORDS: Driving offences - defence of sane automatism- sleep driving caused by Stilnox - expert’s report and conclusions not supported by facts - accused self-medicating by exceeding prescription dose - rebuttal of defence where prosecution rely on facts and call no expert evidence in reply - acceptance or rejection of expert’s report

LEGISLATION CITED: Evidence Act 1995, s 136
Crimes Act 1900, ss 428A, 428D
Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Act 1999, ss 12(1)(a), 42(2)

CASES CITED:

TEXTS CITED:

REPRESENTATION: Sgt C Parnell
Mr B Levet instructed by Marsdens

ORDERS:

- 13 -

JUDGMENT

1 Pandora Pritchard was charged with driving offences that occurred on 16 and 17 October 2009. The first charge on 16 October 2009 was for failing to properly control her motor vehicle (Road Rules r 297(1)) and the second set of charges were for driving in a manner dangerous to the public (s 42(2) Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Act 1999 and for driving under the influence of a drug (s 12(1)(a) Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Act 1999.

2 There was no issue that on each occasion the driving of the accused would constitute the offences alleged but for a defence of sane automatism. The facts alleged by the prosecution were not in dispute and the prosecution case was a “hand up brief”.

3 I have already found the accused guilty of driving on 16 October 2009 without proper control of her vehicle. In doing so I have rejected the defence of sane automatism. I will give brief reasons to supplement the ex tempore reasons given on 11 October 2010 following the hearing.

Facts of 16 October 2009

4 At about 6pm, Noel Quinn was driving in Argyle Street, Camden, when he observed a green army coloured jeep enter a roundabout without giving way. He had to brake to avoid a collision. He then observed the vehicle to cross to the incorrect side of the road and then swerve back to the breakdown lane. Concerned that the driver was impaired he activated the video recorder on his mobile phone and followed the jeep to the Narellan Town Centre. It is alleged that the video records the jeep mounting the concrete medium strip and crossing unbroken lines. Unfortunately the video tendered would not play, but the defence had no issue with the allegations of driving. There was also no dispute that the accused was the driver.

5 Mr Quinn called the Police. Senior Constable Pereyra responded and spoke to Mr Quinn, before approaching the accused. He told Ms Pritchard he was stopping her because of a complaint about her driving. The accused responded “What my driving?” The officer conducted a breath test that was negative and then a sobriety test. In his statement (paragraph 8) he recorded “The accused appeared…

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 Pritchard

Details

AGLC: Police v Pritchard [2010] NSWLC 26
Case: [2010] NSWLC 26
Decision Date: 11/24/2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved a defendant, Pritchard, who was charged with driving offences. The defence of sane automatism was raised, arguing that Pritchard was not in control of his actions due to sleep-driving caused by taking Stilnox. The matter was heard in the relevant court. The central issue was whether Pritchard was genuinely unable to control his actions due to the effects of the medication, or if he had acted recklessly by self-medicating with an excessive dose.

The court examined the expert’s report and its conclusions, finding them not fully supported by the facts presented. The evidence showed that Pritchard had been self-medicating by taking more than the prescribed dose of Stilnox. This undermined the defence of sane automatism as it suggested that the defendant had willingly exceeded the recommended dosage. The court also noted that the prosecution did not need to call any expert evidence in reply, as they were able to rebut the defence using the facts presented. Consequently, the court rejected the expert’s report and the defence of sane automatism.

The court found Pritchard guilty of the driving offences, as the defence of sane automatism was not accepted. The court ordered Pritchard to pay a fine and have his driving licence suspended for a specified period. The decision highlights the importance of expert evidence being well-supported by facts, and the potential consequences of self-medicating and exceeding prescribed dosages.

Orders