R v Hendriksen

In the matter of R v Hendriksen, the appellant was convicted of causing bodily harm by dangerous driving and failing to stop and give assistance after an accident. The appellant appealed against the conviction, arguing that the trial judge erred in the directions given to the jury. The court was required to determine whether the trial judge properly directed the jury on the elements of the offence and whether the omission of a phrase in the directions constituted an error. Additionally, the court had to consider if the trial judge properly related the legal elements to the facts of the case, directed the jury about the defence case, and if the conviction was unreasonable or could not be supported by the evidence, or a miscarriage of justice.

The court found that the trial judge's omission of the phrase "in the situation of the accused" did not amount to an error. The trial judge adequately directed the jury about the elements of the offence, but the directions about the application of the relevant law to the facts were insufficient. The trial judge's presentation of the defence case was inadequate in the circumstances, and the jury was at risk of having a one-sided view of the issues in carrying out its duties. However, the court was not satisfied that it was not open to the jury to find the appellant guilty of the offence, and therefore the conviction for the dangerous driving offence was not unsafe or unsatisfactory, or a miscarriage of justice.

The court concluded that there was evidence on which it was open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the appellant’s guilt, and therefore the appeal was allowed, the convictions were set aside, and a re-trial was ordered on Counts 2 and 3 on the Information. The Chief Justice and the other judges agreed with the decision, expressing their agreement with the reasons expressed by the Chief Justice, particularly in relation to grounds 1 and 2 of the appeal.