R v Crandall - [2001] QCA 409

[2001] QCA 409

COURT OF APPEAL

de JERSEY CJ
JONES J
DOUGLAS J

CA No 74 of 2001

THE QUEEN

BRADLEY KARL CRANDALL Respondent

BRISBANE

..DATE 26/09/2001

JUDGMENT

THE CHIEF JUSTICE: I will ask Justice Jones to deliver the first judgment.

JONES J: Bradley Karl Crandall appeals against his conviction upon trial of the offence of operating a motor vehicle dangerously and thereby causing the death of Susan Eileen Lewis.

The incident giving rise to the charge occurred on 20 June 1999 on the Pumicestone Road at Toorbul. The vehicle was a single cab, 1985 model Toyota Land Cruiser owned by the accused. The prosecution relied on speed as the element which constituted the dangerous operation. The two essential issues litigated at trial were who was driving the vehicle and whether there was evidence that it was driven at such a speed as to be operated dangerously.

The principal witness on both these issues was one, Simon Cope, who said he was a passenger in the vehicle which at the time was being driven by the appellant. There were two other passengers; Jodie Turnbull and the deceased woman. The latter was sitting on Mr Cope's lap in the middle of the vehicle's cab. None of the vehicle's occupants were wearing seat belts.

The defence case was that it was Mr Cope and not the appellant who was driving the vehicle. The jury by its verdict was clearly satisfied that it was the appellant who was doing the driving.

The notice of appeal raised two matters but the first of these is abandoned. The remaining point on this appeal is a short one. It is whether the conviction is unsafe and unsatisfactory having regard to the evidence of the speed of the vehicle.

The evidence discloses that in the early hours of
20 June 1999 the party set out from a residential address to go to a shop. The vehicle went out of control on an S-bend which is located at the end of a straight section of road approximately one kilometre long. The speed limit on this straight section is 100 kilometres per hour but at the bend there is an advisory sign denoting 70 kilometres per hour.
The weather conditions were fine and the road surface was dry.

After the loss of control of the vehicle along the S-bend it came to rest lying on its side against a clump of trees beyond the edge of the roadway. Photographs of the scene were tendered which depicted various tyre marks on the road and these were reproduced on the sketch plan.

The only direct evidence of speed of the vehicle came from Mr Cope. He spoke of the vehicle being driven "aggressively" when it negotiated the first corner on its journey some distance before the loss of control. Thereafter he estimated the changing speed of the vehicle until it reached the S-bend where it went out of control. He did not look at the speedometer. As the vehicle progressed…

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 Crandall

Details

AGLC: R v Crandall [2001] QCA 409
Case: [2001] QCA 409
Decision Date: 26/09/2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Bradley Karl Crandall appealed against his conviction for operating a motor vehicle dangerously and causing the death of Susan Eileen Lewis on 20 June 1999. The incident occurred on the Pumicestone Road at Toorbul, with Crandall driving a 1985 model Toyota Land Cruiser. The prosecution argued that the dangerous operation was due to the speed of the vehicle. The trial focused on two main issues: identifying who was driving the vehicle and whether there was sufficient evidence to prove that it was driven dangerously. The key witness, Simon Cope, claimed he was a passenger in the vehicle and that Crandall was the driver. The defence argued that Cope was the driver, but the jury was convinced by Cope’s testimony that it was Crandall who was driving.

The appeal centred on whether the conviction was safe and satisfactory, specifically regarding the evidence of the vehicle's speed. Cope estimated the speed at various points during the journey, but he admitted that he did not look at the speedometer and based his estimates on the engine noise and the vehicle's performance. Crandall’s appeal questioned the reliability of Cope’s speed estimates and suggested that the evidence should not have been allowed as it placed the jury in a position where they could draw their own conclusions. The Court examined whether the jury could have reasonably accepted Cope’s speed estimates as reliable, considering the circumstances of the incident, including the unsecured passengers and the absence of any other explanation for the loss of control.

The Court of Appeal found that the evidence presented was sufficient for the jury to conclude that Crandall was driving the vehicle and that his operation was dangerous. The criticisms of Cope’s evidence could have been addressed through cross-examination, but they were not, leaving his evidence substantially unchallenged. Therefore, the Court upheld the conviction, holding that the jury was entitled to find Crandall guilty based on the evidence presented. The appeal was dismissed.

Orders