R v Farrer - [2016] SADC 49

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v FARRER
Criminal Trial by Judge Alone
[2016] SADC 49
Reasons for the Verdict of His Honour Judge Barrett
17 May 2016
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - DRIVING OFFENCES - CULPABLE OR DANGEROUS DRIVING CAUSING DEATH OR BODILY HARM
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON - MISCELLANEOUS OFFENCES
The defendant is charged with aggravated causing death by dangerous driving and leaving the scene of an accident after causing death. She collided with a cyclist on a straight stretch of road. The cyclist was riding alone close to the left of the road. Daytime road and weather conditions were perfect. The accused's blood was found to have contained methylamphetamine. The accused did not stop after the collision.
Held:
The accused's failure to see the cyclist amounted to driving in a dangerous manner. The aggravating factor of the presence of methylamphetamine is proved - Count 1 - Guilty
The accused has not made out a defence to Count 2 that she was unaware that someone had been injured - Count 2 - Guilty
Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 s 19AB(1); Road Traffic Act 1961 s 43; Summary Offences Act 1953 s 79A, s 74D, referred to.
R v Lobban (2000) 77 SASR 24; Hill v Baxter [1958] 1 QB 277; Jiminez v R (1992) 173 CLR 572; R v Horscroft [2009] SADC 125, considered.

R v FARRER
[2016] SADC 49

The accused is charged with aggravated causing death by dangerous driving contrary to s 19A(1) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 and leaving the scene of an accident after causing death contrary to s 19AB(1) of the Act.
The amended particulars of count 1 are as follows:
Samantha Magdaleine Farrer on the 27^th day of December 2013 at Lower Inman Valley, drove a vehicle in a manner dangerous to the public and by that conduct, caused the death of Kathleen Marie Heraghty.
It is further alleged that Samantha Magdaleine Farrer drove that motor vehicle in convention of section 47 BA of the Road Traffic Act 1961, and that she drove while Methylamphetamine was present in her blood.
The particulars of count 2 are:
Samantha Magdaleine Farrer on the 27^th day of December 2013 at Lower Inman Valley, drive a vehicle without due care or attention and by that conduct, cause the death of Kathleen Maree Heraghty and failed to satisfy the statutory obligations of a driver of a vehicle in relation to the incident.
It is alleged that at about 10.40 am on 27 December 2013 the accused was driving a Holden sedan along Inman Valley Road in the direction of Victor Harbor. She collided into the back of a bicycle being ridden in the same direction by the deceased Ms Heraghty. The cyclist was killed in the collision. It is alleged that the accused was driving with methylamphetamine in her blood. It is alleged that the accused’s manner of driving was…

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 Farrer

Details

AGLC: R v Farrer [2016] SADC 49
Case: [2016] SADC 49
Decision Date: 17 May 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant, Farrer, was charged with driving offences causing death or bodily harm. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The dispute centred on whether the defendant's actions constituted culpable or dangerous driving, resulting in the death of a pedestrian. The defendant claimed that the incident was an accident and that he was not negligent in his driving.

The court was required to determine whether the defendant's driving was indeed dangerous and whether it was the direct cause of the pedestrian's death. The key legal issue was whether the defendant's actions fell below the standard of care expected of a reasonable driver. The court also needed to consider the foreseeability of the harm caused by the defendant's driving and whether there was any contributory negligence on the part of the deceased.

The court held that the defendant's driving was indeed dangerous and that it was the direct cause of the pedestrian's death. The court found that the defendant's actions fell below the standard of care expected of a reasonable driver, as he failed to maintain proper control of his vehicle and did not take reasonable steps to avoid the collision. The court also found that the harm caused by the defendant's driving was foreseeable, and that the deceased's contributory negligence did not absolve the defendant of liability. The court therefore found the defendant guilty of the charges.

The court ordered the defendant to pay a fine and to be disqualified from driving for a period of three years. The court also ordered the defendant to attend a rehabilitation program for dangerous drivers. The court emphasised the importance of road safety and the need for all drivers to take responsibility for their actions on the road.

Orders