R v Grant - [2021] NSWDC 643

District Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Grant [2021] NSWDC 643
Hearing dates: 1, 2, 4, 5, 8 and 22 November 2021
Date of orders: 26 November 2021
Decision date: 26 November 2021
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Hatzistergos DCJ
Decision:
1. Guilty in respect of Count 1
2. Guilty in respect of Count 2
3. Guilty in respect of Count 3

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW –– Driving offences – Dangerous driving occasioning death – Failing to stop and assist – Police pursuit – Where the Accused was under the influence of intoxication
CRIMINAL LAW –– Judge alone trial – Where the Accused relies on an involuntary act – Where the Accused relies on previous medical conditions rendering his ability to have been cognitively aware of his offending conduct – Where the main defence relied upon was somnambulism – Where the hypotheses relied upon by the Defence was not supported by the expert evidence – Where the offences have been proven beyond reasonable doubt

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) ss 51B, 52A, 52AB
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) ss 133,
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) s 136

Cases Cited:
Filippou v The Queen (2015) 256 CLR 47
Fleming v R (1998) 197 CLR 250
The Queen v Falconer (1990) 171 CLR 30
Yousef v R (1990) 50 A Crim R 1

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Regina (the Crown)
Kenneth Wayne Grant (the Accused)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr L Carr SC (the Crown)
Mr P Boulten SC (the Accused)
Solicitors:
Director of Public Prosecutions (the Crown)
Nicholas Dan Solicitor (the Accused)

File Number(s): 2019/386436; 2019/377991

Judgment

The Accused was arraigned before me on 1 November 2021 on 3 counts. To all counts, he pleaded that he was ‘not guilty.’ The specific counts allege that the Accused:

on 30 November 2019, at Bolwarra in the State of New South Wales, did drive a motor vehicle namely a gold coloured Mazda BT-50 [registration redacted] in a manner dangerous to another person or persons, whereby the vehicle was involved in an impact as a result of which the death of Tony Greenfield was occasioned;

Contrary to S 52A(1)(c) Crimes Act 1900
AND FURTHER

on 30 November 2019, at Bolwarra in the State of New South Wales, did drive a motor vehicle namely a gold coloured Mazda BT-50 [registration redacted] when it was involved in an impact occasioning the death of Tony Greenfield, and the said Kenneth Grant knew or ought reasonably to have known that the vehicle had been involved in an impact occasioning the death of another person, and the said Kenneth Grant failed to stop and give any assistance that may have been necessary and that was in his power to give;

Contrary to S 52AB(1) Crimes Act 1900
AND FURTHER

on 30 November 2019, in Lorn and Maitland in the State of New South Wales, did drive a motor vehicle namely a gold coloured Mazda BT-50 [registration redacted], and the said Kenneth Grant knew or ought reasonably to have known…

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 Grant

Details

AGLC: R v Grant [2021] NSWDC 643
Case: [2021] NSWDC 643
Decision Date: 26 November 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Grant was heard by a judge alone in the Supreme Court of South Australia. The accused was charged with dangerous driving occasioning death, failing to stop and assist, and driving while under the influence of intoxication, all occurring during a police pursuit. The accused relied on the defence of somnambulism, arguing that he was not cognitively aware of his actions due to his condition. The court was required to determine whether the accused's defence was credible and if the Crown had proven the charges beyond reasonable doubt.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the accused's alleged somnambulism and previous medical conditions could be considered involuntary acts, and if these factors rendered him incapable of understanding his actions. The court also had to assess the sufficiency of the expert evidence provided in support of the defence, as well as the Crown's evidence regarding the accused's dangerous driving and his failure to stop and assist. The court needed to decide if the accused's actions were voluntary and if he was aware of the consequences of his driving.

The court found that the defence of somnambulism was not supported by the expert evidence presented. The expert evidence did not establish that the accused was genuinely asleep or unaware of his actions at the time of the incident. Additionally, the court determined that the accused's previous medical conditions did not render him incapable of understanding the nature of his conduct. The court concluded that the Crown had proven all charges beyond reasonable doubt, finding the accused guilty on all counts.

The final orders of the court were that the accused was found guilty of dangerous driving occasioning death, failing to stop and assist, and driving while under the influence of intoxication. The court's decision was based on the lack of credible evidence supporting the defence of somnambulism and the strength of the Crown's evidence against the accused.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Guilty in respect of Count 1

2. Guilty in respect of Count 2

3. Guilty in respect of Count 3

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Grant [2021] NSWDC 643
Hearing dates:	1, 2, 4, 5, 8 and 22 November 2021
Date of orders:	26 November 2021
Decision date:	26 November 2021
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Hatzistergos DCJ
Decision:	1. Guilty in respect of Count 1 2. Guilty in respect of Count 2 3. Guilty in respect of Count 3
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW –– Driving offences – Dangerous driving occasioning death – Failing to stop and assist – Police pursuit – Where the Accused was under the influence of intoxication CRIMINAL LAW –– Judge alone trial – Where the Accused relies on an involuntary act – Where the Accused relies on previous medical conditions rendering his ability to have been cognitively aware of his offending conduct – Where the main defence relied upon was somnambulism – Where the hypotheses relied upon by the Defence was not supported by the expert evidence – Where the offences have been proven beyond reasonable doubt
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) ss 51B, 52A, 52AB Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) ss 133, Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) s 136
Cases Cited:	Filippou v The Queen (2015) 256 CLR 47 Fleming v R (1998) 197 CLR 250 The Queen v Falconer (1990) 171 CLR 30 Yousef v R (1990) 50 A Crim R 1
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Regina (the Crown) Kenneth Wayne Grant (the Accused)
Representation:	Counsel: Mr L Carr SC (the Crown) Mr P Boulten SC (the Accused) Solicitors: Director of Public Prosecutions (the Crown) Nicholas Dan Solicitor (the Accused)
File Number(s):	2019/386436; 2019/377991