R v Fong

Case [2020] NSWDC 214


District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Fong [2020] NSWDC 214
Hearing dates: 15 May 2020
Date of orders: 15 May 2020
Decision date: 15 May 2020
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Abadee DCJ
Decision:

See paragraph 73

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – conviction appeal – dangerous driving offences – negligent driving occasioning grievous bodily harm – whether driver was negligent in reversing in petrol station
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 54
Road Transport Act 2013 (NSW), s 117
Cases Cited: Ayre v Swan [2019] NSWCA 202
Derrick v Cheung (2001) 181 ALR 301
DPP (NSW) v Yeo (2008) 51 MVR 157
Dyason v Butterworth [2015] NSWCA 52
R v Bateman [1925] All ER 45
R v D (1984) 3 NSWLR 29
Royall v The Queen (1991) 172 CLR 378
Swan v The Queen [2020] HCA 11
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Director of Public Prosecutions
Mr M Fong
Representation: Solicitors:
Solicitor for the Director of Public Prosecutions
Conditsis Lawyers for the appellant
File Number(s): 2019/139084
Publication restriction: Nil
 Decision under appeal 
Court or tribunal:
Local Court
Jurisdiction:
Crime
Citation:
Unreported
Date of Decision:
29 January 2020
Before:
Magistrate E Ellis
File Number(s):
2019/139084

Judgment

BACKGROUND

  1. On 19 November 2018, between 4:30pm and 4:40pm, the appellant was reversing his white Ford Falcon ute out from next to a petrol bowser at a 7-Eleven petrol station at Toukley. In doing so, he backed into a pedestrian, Mrs Joan Horsey, who was in the process of returning to her car after going into the shop. It was accepted in this appeal that, at the time of impact, Mrs Horsey had been standing behind the vehicle for a period of about 30 seconds. The impact of the car caused very serious injury to Mrs Horsey’s legs; particularly her left leg. Her left leg was, for some horrifying moments, trapped under the appellant’s vehicle.

  2. The appellant was charged and tried in the Wyong Local Court with the offence of negligent driving occasioning grievous bodily harm, contrary to s 117(1)(b) of the Road Transport Act2013 (NSW) (‘RT Act’).

  3. On 16 January 2020, the appellant was convicted of the offence in the Wyong Local Court. Two related charges (sequences 2 & 3) were then withdrawn. On 29 January 2020, the appellant was sentenced. On the same day, the appellant filed an ‘all grounds’ appeal against both his conviction and sentence. Upon the filing of the appeal, execution of the sentence was stayed.

ELEMENTS OF THE OFFENCE, DEFINITIONS AND PRINCIPLES

  1. There is no definition of negligence, for the purpose of s 117(1) of the RT Act. That provision is to be construed, however, with reference to the objects of the RT Act, which relevantly includes the regulation of road users and improvement in road safety.

  2. Section 117(3) provides that in determining whether the offence of negligent driving on a road is made out, the Court is to have regard to:

“(a) the nature, condition and use of the road on which…

Continue reading R v Fong

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Fong [2020] NSWDC 214
Case
[2020] NSWDC 214
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Mr. Fong, was convicted of dangerous driving occasioning grievous bodily harm following an incident where his reversing vehicle struck a pedestrian at a petrol station. The case was appealed to the court, where the primary issue was whether Mr. Fong was negligent in reversing his vehicle, thereby causing the grievous bodily harm to the pedestrian. The court had to determine the standard of care expected from Mr. Fong under the circumstances and whether his actions fell below this standard. Additionally, the court considered whether the conviction should be upheld based on the evidence and the applicable legal principles.

The court examined the evidence and legal principles pertinent to the case, focusing on the duty of care owed by a driver when reversing a vehicle in a petrol station. It considered the standard of care expected of a reasonable person under similar circumstances. The court also evaluated whether Mr. Fong's actions, or lack thereof, constituted a breach of this duty and if such a breach resulted in the grievous bodily harm to the pedestrian. Furthermore, the court assessed the credibility of the evidence presented and the applicability of statutory provisions and case law to the facts of the case.

After careful consideration, the court found that Mr. Fong's actions did indeed constitute negligence. The court determined that Mr. Fong failed to exercise the requisite standard of care when reversing his vehicle, leading to the grievous bodily harm of the pedestrian. The evidence presented was deemed credible, and the statutory provisions and case law supported the conviction. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the conviction was upheld. The court's final orders were delivered in paragraph 73 of the judgment.

Orders

Orders of the court

See paragraph 73

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.