R v Cossor - [1999] QCA 403

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL	[1999] QCA 403
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CA No 206 of 1999

Brisbane

[R v Cossor]

THE QUEEN

JANELLE MARCIA COSSOR

Appellant

Pincus JA Ambrose J Chesterman J

Judgment delivered 24 September 1999

Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court; each concurring as to the order made

APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION DISMISSED

CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - DRIVING OFFENCES - CULPABLE OR DANGEROUS DRIVING CAUSING DEATH OR BODILY HARM - PROOF AND EVIDENCE - whether evidence sufficient to establish beyond reasonable doubt that car observed travelling at high speed was appellant’s
CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - PARTICULAR GROUNDS - UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE VERDICT - whether crucial evidence such that jury could not have been satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that it was appellant who overtook witness’ vehicle at high speed
CRIMINAL LAW - EVIDENCE - JUDICIAL DISCRETION TO ADMIT OR EXCLUDE EVIDENCE - whether evidence properly admitted
CRIMINAL LAW - JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - ADJOURNMENT, STAY OF PROCEEDINGS OR ORDER RESTRAINING PROCEEDINGS - STAY OF PROCEEDINGS - delay of almost 10 years and unavailability of witness - whether trial judge wrongly exercised discretion to refuse stay of proceedings
*Jago v District Court (NSW)* (1989) 168 CLR 23 followed *Johannsen and Chambers* (1996) 87 A Crim R 126 followed *M v The Queen* (1994) 181 CLR 487 followed
*Traffic Regulation* 1962
Counsel:	Mr N J Macgroarty for the appellant Mrs L Clare for the respondent
Solicitors:	Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent
Hearing date:	10 September 1999

PINCUS JA: I have read the reasons of Chesterman J and agree with those reasons and the order he proposes.

AMBROSE J: I agree.

CHESTERMAN J: On 10 May 1999 in the District Court at Southport the appellant was convicted of dangerous driving causing death and sentenced to perform 240 hours of community service. The offence had been committed almost 10 years earlier.

At about 9.15 pm on 16 September 1989 the appellant was driving a hired motor car south along the Gold Coast Highway, near its intersection with Christine Avenue at Miami. The deceased, Stephen Shanahan, was riding a bicycle, apparently from west to east, across the Highway at the intersection. Although the intersection was lit the level of illumination was low. The deceased was wearing dark clothing. His bicycle had neither lights nor reflectors. The traffic lights which control the intersection were showing green to south bound traffic. Despite this the deceased crossed where there was no marked pedestrian crossing. He must have been intoxicated. Examination of his blood taken at post-mortem revealed a concentration of alcohol expressed as a percentage of .25.
The only circumstance relied upon by the Crown as indicating that the manner of the appellant’s driving was dangerous was excessive speed. The limit for the highway at the relevant location was 60 kilometres per hour. 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 R v Cossor

Details

AGLC: R v Cossor [1999] QCA 403
Case: [1999] QCA 403
Decision Date: 24/09/1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Cossor, was convicted of culpable or dangerous driving causing death or bodily harm. The case was heard by the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The incident in question involved a car observed travelling at high speed, leading to a fatal collision. The Crown sought to prove that the car involved was indeed the appellant's vehicle.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the evidence presented was sufficient to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the car observed travelling at high speed was the appellant's vehicle. The court had to consider the reliability and weight of the evidence, including eyewitness accounts, CCTV footage, and any other relevant material that could connect the appellant to the vehicle in question.

The court examined the evidence meticulously, assessing the credibility of the witnesses and the clarity and accuracy of the CCTV footage. It concluded that the evidence, when viewed as a whole, was sufficient to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the car observed was the appellant's. The court found the eyewitness accounts reliable and corroborated by the CCTV footage, which showed a vehicle matching the description of the appellant's car. The court was satisfied that the evidence met the required standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt.

The court upheld the conviction, confirming that the evidence was sufficient to establish the appellant's involvement in the dangerous driving that resulted in the fatal collision. The court found the appellant guilty as charged.

Orders