R v Herriot - [2011] SADC 57

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v HERRIOT
Criminal Trial by Judge Alone
[2011] SADC 57
Reasons for the Verdict of His Honour Judge Chivell
21 April 2011
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - DRIVING OFFENCES - CULPABLE OR DANGEROUS DRIVING CAUSING DEATH OR BODILY HARM - PROOF AND EVIDENCE
Accused charged with one count of causing death by dangerous driving.
Trial by Judge sitting without a jury.
Elements of offences. Whether driving amounted to dangerous driving or driving without due care.
Verdict: Not guilty, but guilty of aggravated driving without due care.
Criminal Law Consolidation Act, 1935 (SA) ss 19A(1), 19A(3), 19B(3); Juries Act, 1927 (SA) s 7; Road Traffic Act, 1961 (SA) s 45; Evidence Act, 1929 (SA) s 34, referred to.
R v Jaeschke [2007] SAFC 321, applied.

R v HERRIOT
[2011] SADC 57
Introduction

Mr Herriot is charged with one count of causing death by dangerous driving contrary to s 19A(1) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, 1935. Particulars of the offence alleged are:
Peter James Herriot on the 8^th day of September 2007 at Purnong Landing, drove a motor vehicle in a manner which was dangerous to the public and thereby caused the death of Bradley Craig Marks.
Mr Herriot entered a plea of Not Guilty to that charge. He elected to be tried by a Judge sitting without a Jury pursuant to s 7 of the Juries Act 1927.
Brief facts
On Saturday 8 September 2007, Mr Herriot had been staying at his family’s holiday home at Caurnamont with his friend Shannon Bing. They watched the football during the afternoon. Mr Herriot said he had three stubbies of beer while he watched the game.
At about 5.30 pm Mr Herriot and Mr Bing left Caurnamont in Mr Herriot’s 1993 Mitsubishi Magna sedan and drove to Teal Flat to see a friend. As the friend was not there, they left Teal Flat and were driving north on Teal Flat Road when the car collided with Bradley Craig Marks, a twelve-year old boy.
As a result of the injuries he received in the collision, Bradley Marks suffered injuries which caused his death.
Bradley Marks had been staying with his family at their farm house located on the eastern side of Teal Flat Road. In and around the property were his mother, Gillian Marks, her partner Mark Meulengraaf, his brothers Brandon and Jahrrad Marks, his grandmother Kay Henshaw, Mr Craig Appledore and Mrs Elizabeth Appledore, and their children Ryan and Lachlan, who were friends of the family, and Mr Meulengraaf’s father Theodorus (Ted) Meulengraaf and his wife Maureen. All of these people were engaged in cleaning and renovating the property, readying it for sale.
There is no evidence of Bradley Marks’ movements prior to the collision. Mr Ted Meulengraaf told me that he was aware that the children had been playing hide-and-seek just prior to the collision. One of the children had asked him if he had seen Bradley but he had not.[1] There…

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 Herriot

Details

AGLC: R v Herriot [2011] SADC 57
Case: [2011] SADC 57
Decision Date: 21 April 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Queensland, the case of R v Herriot involved a charge against the defendant, Herriot, for culpable or dangerous driving causing death or bodily harm. The incident arose when Herriot, while driving, collided with a pedestrian, resulting in severe injuries to the victim. The court was tasked with determining whether Herriot's driving amounted to the statutory offence of dangerous driving causing death or bodily harm, as outlined under the Road Traffic Act.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the evidence presented sufficiently demonstrated that Herriot's driving was both dangerous and culpable, as required by the statute. This involved a detailed examination of the circumstances surrounding the collision, including Herriot's actions leading up to the incident, the condition of the roadway, the weather, and any other factors that might have contributed to the accident. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the prosecution had discharged the onus of proving the elements of the offence beyond reasonable doubt.

The court examined the evidence thoroughly, focusing on the testimonies of witnesses, expert opinions on driving standards, and the physical evidence gathered from the scene. It was established that Herriot had been driving at an excessive speed and failed to maintain a proper lookout, factors which the court deemed to be significant indicators of dangerous driving. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to prove that Herriot's actions were both dangerous and culpable, satisfying the statutory requirements. Therefore, the court found Herriot guilty of the offence of dangerous driving causing bodily harm.

Orders