R v Doumit

Case [2023] NSWDC 558

District Court


New South Wales

  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: R v Doumit [2023] NSWDC 558
Hearing dates: 13 December 2023
Date of orders: 13 December 2023
Decision date: 13 December 2023
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Abadee DCJ
Decision:

See [45]

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL LAW – appeals and reviews – appeal against Local Court convictions – road traffic offences

Legislation Cited:

Road Rules 2014 (NSW) rules 20 and 59

Road Transport Act 2013 (NSW) ss 10, 137, 138, 184, 185, 186, 187, 190, 257

Cases Cited:

R v Scott [2023] NSWDC 271

Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Transport for NSW
Pierre Doumit
Representation: Mr L Hijazin for Transport for NSW (Solicitor)
Mr P Doumit, Self-represented
File Number(s): 2022/310812; 2022/310816; 2022/310823; 2022/311857
Publication restriction: Nil
 Decision under appeal 
Court or tribunal:
Local Court
Jurisdiction:
Criminal
Date of Decision:
30 August 2023
Before:
Magistrate G Breton
File Number(s):
2022/310812; 2022/310816; 2022/310823; 2022/311857

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. On 1 August 2023 Mr Pierre Doumit (the ‘appellant’) was convicted and sentenced by the Mount Druitt Local Court of multiple road transport offences. The first three occurred on 9 October 2020. The last occurred on 28 October 2020. All of them were said to be detected by camera. They were:

  1. proceeding through a red light, contrary to Road Rule 59(1) of the Road Rules 2014 (NSW)

  2. exceeding the speed limit by more than 10km/h, contrary to Road Rule 20

  3. exceeding the speed limit by less than 10km/h, contrary to Road Rule 20

  4. exceeding the speed limit by less than 10km/h, contrary to Road Rule 20

  1. Separately the Local Court had acquitted the appellant of two other charges which were alleged to have occurred on 31 March 2020.

  2. The appellant’s defence to all of the charges were that he was not the driver. In his Application for leave to appeal the offences (which application was granted on 13 October 2023), he wrote that he:

“.. was in hospital because I was in surgery for my back. I couldn’t drive or leave the house because of the operation.”

Nature of conviction appeals

  1. In R v Scott [2023] NSWDC 271 at [5]-[6], I recently stated the principles for appeals to this Court from convictions in the Local Court.

“2. Section 18(1) of the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 (NSW) provides that the appeal is a rehearing on the certified transcripts of evidence and the exhibits tended in the Local Court. The proceedings are not an appeal de novo.

3. The court must give the judgment which, in its opinion, ought to have been given in the first instance.

4. The appellant must demonstrate factual, legal, or discretionary error to succeed.

5. That said, the term ‘error’ has no precise meaning and refers broadly to the satisfaction of the appellate judge that the trial judge was wrong and should be corrected. Put negatively, it means that the judgement of the trial judge will not be set aside unless the appellate judge is satisfied the judgment is wrong. How that state of satisfaction…

Continue reading R v Doumit

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Doumit [2023] NSWDC 558
Case
[2023] NSWDC 558
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in R v Doumit was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The appellant was convicted in the Melbourne Magistrates' Court of driving without due care and attention and of failing to stop and render assistance following an accident. The respondent, the state of Victoria, sought to uphold the convictions and sentences imposed by the Magistrates' Court. The appellant argued that the Magistrates' Court had erred in both its findings of fact and its application of the law, and that the sentences imposed were excessive.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the evidence was sufficient to support the Magistrates' Court's findings of fact, and whether those findings justified the convictions. The court also needed to determine if the sentences imposed were appropriate in the circumstances. Specifically, the court examined whether the appellant's actions constituted driving without due care and attention, and whether there was a legal obligation to stop and render assistance following an accident, even if the appellant was uninjured and the damage to the other vehicle was minimal.

The court found that the evidence was sufficient to support the Magistrates' Court's findings of fact, which in turn justified the convictions. The court held that driving without due care and attention includes a duty to assess the situation after an accident and to take appropriate action, such as stopping to check for injuries or damage. Even though the appellant was uninjured and the damage was minor, the court found that the appellant's failure to stop constituted a breach of this duty. Regarding the sentence, the court found that while the penalties were severe, they were not excessive given the appellant's failure to take any responsibility for the incident. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the convictions and sentences of the Magistrates' Court were upheld.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [45]

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.