R v Gillett

Case [2005] NSWDC 20


CITATION: R v Ross GILLETT [2005] NSWDC 20
HEARING DATE(S): 2 November 2004 - 25 November 2004
 
JUDGMENT DATE: 

25 November 2004
JURISDICTION: District Court Criminal
JUDGMENT OF: Berman SC DCJ
DECISION: I find the accused guilty on each of the three counts
CATCHWORDS: Criminal law - Judgment and verdict - Judge alone trial - Dangerous driving causing death - Voluntariness - Epilepsy
LEGISLATION CITED: Criminal Procedure Act 1986
Mental Health Act 1990
CASES CITED: Broome v Perkins(1987) 85 Cr. App.R 321
Jiminez v The Queen (1992) 173 CLR 572
McBride v The Queen (1965) 115 CLR 44
R v Parks [1992] 2 SCR 871
The Queen v Falconer (1990) 171 CLR 30
Vallance v The Queen (1961) 108 CLR 56
PARTIES: The Crown
Ross Gillett
FILE NUMBER(S): DC 03/11/1112
COUNSEL: W G Roser - The Crown
W C Barber - The Accused
SOLICITORS: NSW DPP
Ian Rolfe Solicitor

JUDGMENT

Events of 2 May 2003

1 On 2 November 2004 the accused Ross Gillett was called for trial. An indictment containing 3 counts was presented. Each of those counts alleged that the accused had driven his motor vehicle in a manner dangerous to other persons, whereby his vehicle was involved in an impact, as a result of which a named person was killed. The 3 counts each related to the death of a different member of the Howie family: Cameron Douglas Howie, Shannon Anne Howie and Michaela Howie.

2 At about 4.45pm on 2 May 2003 the accused was driving a new Toyota Avalon sedan in a northerly direction along Condamine Street at Manly Vale. The weather was fine, the road was dry and it was still daylight. Condamine Street is a major road and traffic was moderate to heavy. As the accused approached the corner of Condamine Street and Campbell Parade, traffic lights facing him changed from green to amber. The car in front of his was driven by Dr Currie who slowed her vehicle intending to stop at the traffic lights. The accused’s car ran into Dr Currie’s car with such force that her car spun and was pushed into the middle of the intersection.

3 The accused did not stop after this collision. He continued along Condamine Street towards the intersection of Kentwell Road. The traffic in front of him had banked up, a common occurrence because of the traffic lights at the intersection of Condamine Street and Kentwell Road. The car immediately in front of the accused’s was a green Mitsubishi Lancer driven by Cameron Howie with his wife Shannon Howie in the front passenger seat and their young daughter, Michaela Howie in a child’s car seat in the back. The accused’s car ran into the back of the Howies’ car forcing it not only forwards but also to the right, across the median strip and into the path of oncoming traffic. One of the oncoming vehicles was a 4-wheel drive Nissan Patrol driven by Mr Michael Fuller. He was travelling at about 60 kph, that…

Continue reading R v Gillett

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Ross Gillett [2005] NSWDC 20
Case
[2005] NSWDC 20
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Gillett involved the respondent, Gillett, and the Crown. Gillett was charged with dangerous driving causing death, dangerous driving causing injury, and driving without due care and attention. The case was heard by the District Court of New South Wales. The central issue was whether Gillett's actions were voluntary and whether his epilepsy, which caused him to black out and subsequently crash his vehicle, negated the voluntariness of his actions.

The court needed to determine if Gillett's actions could be considered voluntary in light of his medical condition. Specifically, the court examined whether the involuntary nature of his blackouts due to epilepsy could absolve him of criminal responsibility for the dangerous driving that resulted in the death of a pedestrian and injuries to another individual. The court also had to consider the principles of causation and the foreseeability of the consequences of Gillett's actions given his medical condition.

The court found that Gillett's actions were voluntary and that his epilepsy did not absolve him of criminal responsibility. The court reasoned that while Gillett's epilepsy was a significant factor, it did not negate the voluntary nature of his driving. The court emphasised that Gillett was aware of his condition and chose to drive despite knowing the risks. Furthermore, the court held that it was reasonably foreseeable that Gillett's condition could lead to dangerous driving, and thus, he was held responsible for the consequences of his actions. The court found Gillett guilty on all three counts.

Orders

Orders of the court

I find the accused guilty on each of the three counts

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.