R v Inglis

The appellant, R v Inglis, appealed against a conviction for causing serious harm by dangerous driving. The appeal was heard by Gray, Anderson, and Stanley JJ in the Court of Criminal Appeal. The dispute centred on the adequacy of the trial judge's directions to the jury regarding the defence case, the concept of foreseeable risk in relation to an alternative charge, and the substantial causation of the victim's injuries.

The legal issues before the Court of Criminal Appeal included whether the trial judge had adequately presented the defence's case to the jury, whether a direction on foreseeable risk was necessary for the offence of driving without due care and attention, and whether the jury had been adequately directed on the issue of whether the appellant's driving was a substantial cause of the serious harm suffered by the victim. The court also considered whether the jury's verdict was unsafe and unreasonable given these alleged deficiencies.

The Court of Criminal Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge had provided appropriate directions concerning the elements of the offence and had adequately summarised the defence's position on the essential issues. The court held that "foreseeability" is not a component of the test for driving without due care. Furthermore, the judges were satisfied that the trial judge's directions regarding the appellant's driving being a substantial cause of the injuries were adequate, and that the jury was capable of concluding that the driving was indeed dangerous to the public. Consequently, the verdict was not deemed unsafe or unreasonable.