R v Davies - [2000] NSWCCA 84

NEW SOUTH WALES CRIMINAL COURT OF APPEAL

CITATION: R v Davies [2000] NSWCCA 84

FILE NUMBER(S):
60500 of 1999

HEARING DATE(S): 14 March 2000

JUDGMENT DATE: 04/04/2000

PARTIES:
Regina
Travers Jamie Davies

JUDGMENT OF: Sheller JA Hulme J Dowd J

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S):

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Patten DCJ

COUNSEL:
M Grogan - Crown
P Byrne SC - Appellant

SOLICITORS:
SE O'Connor - Crown
TA Murphy - Appellant

CATCHWORDS:

LEGISLATION CITED:

DECISION:
Leave to appeal against sentence granted.
Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT:

- 28 -

IN THE COURT OF

CRIMINAL APPEAL

60500/99

SHELLER JA
HULME J
DOWD J

Tuesday, 4 April 2000

REGINA v Travers Jamie DAVIES

JUDGMENT

1 SHELLER JA: I have had the benefit of reading the judgments prepared in draft by Hulme and Dowd JJ. For reasons given by Hulme J, I agree that the appeal against conviction should be dismissed.

2 The stark facts of this case are that the appellant illegally drove through a red traffic light at a busy intersection where traffic in the lane to his right had stopped and at such a speed that he was unable to avoid hitting a pedestrian crossing the road in the pedestrian crossing. The pedestrian was a teenage school girl. She was thrown in the air by the impact and killed.

3 In his remarks on sentence, Judge Patten was satisfied that the appellant’s conduct in driving through a red light into a pedestrian crossing in the circumstances constituted a piece of grossly irresponsible driving. This conclusion was clearly open. The appellant gave no evidence at the trial or on sentence. In his record of interview, he said that he was travelling at 60 kilometres per hour and as he got to the lights, the light was green. He saw a girl running from the right hand side, he turned the wheel to the left to swerve and applied the brakes. By the time he stopped the vehicle and turned around, the girl was lying on the ground and he ran back and tried to offer assistance. He said he was first aware that the light was green about 40 metres from the traffic lights and it did not change.

4 This record of interview was before the jury. Palpably the jury did not believe it. Why the appellant drove in such a senseless fashion through the red light cannot be known. But there is nothing to suggest that it was as a result of momentary inattention or misjudgment; compare R v Jurisic (1998) 45 NSWLR 209 at 231. The appellant pleaded not guilty and at no stage expressed to the sentencing Judge any contrition or remorse. Appropriately, the sentencing Judge took account of the evidence of other witnesses to find that the appellant was remorseful. These and other matters the Judge took into account in sentencing the appellant. I am conscious of the careful evaluation of these matters and other matters to which Hulme J has referred in coming to…

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 Davies

Details

AGLC: R v Davies [2000] NSWCCA 84
Case: [2000] NSWCCA 84
Decision Date: 4 April 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Crown versus Davies, the case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The defendant, Davies, was charged with the offence of dangerous driving causing death under the Road Safety Act 1986 (Vic). The incident arose from a motor vehicle collision that resulted in the death of a pedestrian. The Crown alleged that Davies was driving in a reckless manner, leading to the tragic outcome.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether Davies' actions constituted dangerous driving as defined by the statute. The court had to consider the standard of care expected from a reasonable driver and whether Davies' conduct fell below this standard. Additionally, the court needed to assess the causal link between Davies' alleged dangerous driving and the pedestrian's death. The defence argued that Davies' actions did not amount to dangerous driving and that other factors contributed to the accident.

The court found that Davies' actions, which included speeding and failing to yield at an intersection, were indeed reckless and below the standard expected of a reasonable driver. The evidence presented by the Crown established a clear causal connection between Davies' dangerous driving and the pedestrian's death. Consequently, the court held that Davies was guilty of the charge as per the statute. The final orders of the court included a conviction and the imposition of a sentence to be determined in a subsequent proceeding.

Orders