R v Franks - [1998] VSCA 100

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL Not Restricted

No. 59 of 1998

THE QUEEN
v
STEVEN WAYNE FRANKS

---

JUDGES: WINNEKE, P., TADGELL and BATT, JJ.A.
WHERE HELD: MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING: 23 and 24 June 1998
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 6 November 1998
MEDIA NEUTRAL CITATION: [1998] VSCA 100

---

Criminal law - Culpable driving - Death alleged to be caused by “gross negligence” - Crown allegation that “gross negligence” constituted by continuing to drive semi- trailer whilst in state of fatigue or whilst asleep - Judge failing to isolate and identify for jury the act of driving constituting “gross negligence”.
Onus of proof - Explanation given by accused for the happening of collision - Failure to adequately instruct jury as to the manner in which they should use such explanation in determining whether the Crown had discharged onus.

---

APPEARANCES: Counsel Solicitors
For the Crown Mr. P.A. Coghlan, Q.C. P.C. Wood, Solicitor for
Public Prosecutions
For the Applicant Mr. C.H. Francis, Q.C. and Joseph Battiato
Mr. M.W. Houlihan

WINNEKE, P.:

On 14 February 1996 a fully laden M.A.N. semi-trailer motor vehicle, weighing some 43 tonnes (the “semi-trailer”) ran into the rear of a Bedford tray truck carrying four steers (the “Bedford”) in the left hand southbound lane of the Hume Highway some 10 kilometres north of Wangaratta. The collision occurred at approximately 8.15 p.m. eastern summer time, in fine weather and in good conditions of visibility, although the sun was setting in the west and, according to some witnesses, cast a glare. The highway, at the point where the collision occurred, was a divided one with two southbound lanes divided by a median strip from two northbound lanes. On the left of the two southbound carriageways, and separated from them by a “fog-line” was an emergency lane which bordered a grass verge. The highway in this vicinity was known as the “Wangaratta Straight”, and as the name implies, comprised more than 10 kilometres of straight bitumen road without any impediment to vision. The Bedford, which was being driven by a young man named Gregory Anderson, aged 22, had turned onto this stretch of highway from an intersecting road some two kilometres to the north of the point of collision. Anderson had driven from his father’s property, which he had left shortly before the collision, for the purposes of delivering the cattle to a market in Wangaratta. The cattle were encaged in a wire frame on the tray of the Bedford, the total weight of which, including the load, was approximately six tonnes.
The semi-trailer was being driven by the applicant Steven Wayne Franks who was 44 years of age. He was an interstate truck driver of some 20 years experience. His journey to the point of collision had commenced in Brisbane at about 4 p.m. on the preceding day, the 13th of February. He was driving for a company called “Braun Transport” and his destination was the Sunshine depot of that company. The journey was the “return leg”…

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 Franks

Details

AGLC: R v Franks [1998] VSCA 100
Case: [1998] VSCA 100
Decision Date: 6 November 1998

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Franks involved the respondent, Franks, who was charged with culpable driving causing the death of another. The dispute centred around whether the Crown had successfully established that Franks' actions constituted "gross negligence," specifically by continuing to drive a semi-trailer while fatigued or asleep. The matter was heard in the relevant appellate court, which was tasked with reviewing the trial judge's instructions to the jury and determining whether these instructions were sufficient to establish the required standard of negligence.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the trial judge had adequately isolated and identified the act of driving as constituting "gross negligence" and whether the jury had been properly instructed on how to use the accused's explanation for the collision in determining whether the Crown had discharged its onus of proof. The court had to assess if the trial judge's directions to the jury were sufficiently clear and comprehensive to enable the jury to make an informed decision on the matter of gross negligence.

In its reasoning, the court found that the trial judge had failed to sufficiently isolate and identify for the jury the specific act of driving that constituted "gross negligence." Furthermore, the court determined that the trial judge did not adequately instruct the jury on how to use the accused's explanation for the collision in their assessment of whether the Crown had discharged its onus of proof. As a result, the court concluded that these errors were significant and affected the fairness of the trial, leading to an unsafe and unsatisfactory verdict. The appellate court quashed the conviction, finding that the trial judge's directions to the jury were inadequate, and ordered a retrial.

The court did not make any further orders beyond the quashing of the conviction and the direction for a retrial, as the matter needed to be retried with proper instructions to the jury.

Orders