R v James - [2012] SADC 2

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v JAMES
Criminal Trial by Judge Alone
[2012] SADC 2
Reasons for the Verdict of His Honour Judge Cuthbertson
19 January 2012
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - DRIVING OFFENCES - SENTENCE - CULPABLE OR DANGEROUS DRIVING CAUSING DEATH - SOUTH AUSTRALIA
Accused charged with Aggravated Causing Death by Dangerous Driving.
HELD: Elements of offence proved beyond reasonable doubt. Verdict: Guilty.
Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 s 19A(1), referred to.
R v S (1991) 22 NSWLR 548; R v Breuker [2011] SADC 64; Police v Brine [2011] MCTAN-10-803 as per McEwen SJ; R v Palmer [2008] SADC 122; Queen v Duncan (1953) 11 SASR 592; Senior v Police [2005] SASC 88; Ardill v Police [2005] SASC 450; Tidswell v Police BC9804255; R v Payne BC8500019; Lehmann v Police [2010] SASC 102, considered.

R v JAMES
[2012] SADC 2
Introduction

The accused stands charged with Aggravated Causing Death by Dangerous Driving contrary to s 19A(1) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935.
Particulars of the offence against him allege that he, on 4 April 2010 at Yongala, drove a motor vehicle in a culpably negligent manner, or in a reckless manner or at speed or in a manner which was dangerous to the public and thereby caused the death of Luke Jonathon Burke.
The circumstance of aggravation alleged is that he committed the offence while there was present in his blood a concentration of more than .08 g of alcohol per 100 ml of blood.
The accused is alleged to have been driving his Holden Commodore motor vehicle around the small township of Yongala, with passengers. He lost control of the vehicle causing it to roll over on its roof and come to rest in a culvert near some silos adjacent to the town. The deceased was partly ejected from the vehicle and died as a result of injuries sustained from the collision. The accused told police that he has no recollection of who was driving the vehicle.
Issues arise as to proof of the identity of the driver as well as issues of whether there could be said to be any danger to members of the public, insofar as members of the public might exclude persons in the motor vehicle and whether the persons in the motor vehicle were party to the dangerous driving and hence could not be regarded as members of the public endangered by the driving for reasons of their being party to the dangerous driving.
Facts not in Dispute
Easter Saturday 3 April 2010 was the birthday of the witness Gladwell. On that evening he met up with friends Burke the deceased, Yates and James the accused. They had some drinks at a private residence and the Peterborough Hotel.
Later in the evening they travelled to the Federal Hotel in the main street of Peterborough where McCready worked as a barmaid. She was the girlfriend of Burke. They had some drinks at…

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 James

Details

AGLC: R v James [2012] SADC 2
Case: [2012] SADC 2
Decision Date: 19 January 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v James involved the accused being charged with Aggravated Causing Death by Dangerous Driving under the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935. The incident occurred on 4 April 2010 in the town of Yongala, where the accused, along with other passengers, was driving a vehicle in a dangerous manner, resulting in the death of one of the passengers, Luke Jonathon Burke. The primary legal issues revolved around whether the driving was voluntary, intentional, and dangerous to the public, as well as whether the accused was the driver at the time of the accident. The court examined various pieces of evidence, including witness testimonies and expert opinions, to determine these elements.

The court found that the accused was indeed the driver at the time of the accident, based on the fact that the accused was the registered owner of the vehicle, had driven most of the journey, had blood on the driver's side door, and was found in the driver's area of the car after the accident. Additionally, the driving was determined to be both voluntary and intentional, as there was no evidence of coercion or lack of voluntariness. The court held that the driving was dangerous to the public, despite arguments that the occupants of the car were part of a joint enterprise to drive dangerously. The court distinguished the case from R v S, holding that the potential for members of the public to be endangered was sufficient to establish dangerous driving to the public. Finally, the court concluded that the dangerous driving caused the death of the deceased and that the circumstances of aggravation were proven beyond reasonable doubt.

The verdict was guilty of the aggravated offence, and the court indicated that it would hear evidence regarding the penalty.

Orders