R v Jones - [2012] SADC 131

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v JONES
Criminal Trial by Judge Alone
[2012] SADC 131
Reasons for the Verdict of His Honour Judge Muscat
19 October 2012
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - DRIVING OFFENCES - CULPABLE OR DANGEROUS DRIVING CAUSING DEATH OR BODILY HARM
Aggravated causing death by dangerous driving - vehicle veering off country road onto verge at night, before returning to road and rolling over - whether accused evading a kangaroo - high blood alcohol concentration of accused - whether dangerous driving.
Causation - whether victim interfered with steering of vehicle.
Verdict of guilty.
Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 s 19A(1), s 19B(3), referred to.
R v Kamleh (1990) 159 LSJS 268; R v Cornish (1988) 48 SASR 521; R v Dawood [2002] SASC 346; Royall v R (1972) 172 CLR 378; R v Ettles (1997) 27 MVR 265; R v Duryea (2008) 103 SASR 70; R v Pfeifer Unreported CCA Judgment No. 680 of 1990 delivered 11 December 1990; R v Harris (1990) 55 SASR 321; Edwards v R (1993) 178 CLR 193, considered.

R v JONES
[2012] SADC 131
The Charge

Jason Lee Jones is charged with causing the death of Bradley Brine on the 7^th day of May 2011 at Kapunda, by driving a motor vehicle in a manner which was dangerous to the public, contrary to section 19A (1) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935.
The offence is alleged to be aggravated by Mr Jones having a blood alcohol concentration of more than 0.08 grams in 100 millilitres of his blood.
Mr Jones has pleaded not guilty and elected for trial by judge alone.
Introduction
Sometime after 12.00 am on Saturday 7 May 2011, Mr Jones was driving his Mitsubishi Triton dual-cab utility south along the Eudunda to Kapunda road. His friend, Bradley Brine was seated in the front passenger seat. They were driving home to Elizabeth after visiting a friend at Eudunda.
The Eudunda to Kapunda road is a single lane highway. The area on either side of the road consists of either farm land or paddocks. It was a cool, dry night and the road was in good condition. As with all country roads there was no lighting along it. The speed limit along the road is zoned at 110 kph.
When they were approximately three kilometres north of the township of Kapunda the vehicle left the bitumen road and began to travel along the gravel verge or shoulder of the road. The vehicle was travelling at or about the speed limit at the time. The stretch of the road where this occurred is straight and slightly downhill for south bound traffic. The vehicle travelled along the verge for a distance of over 50 metres.
As the vehicle travelled along the verge it was steered sharply to the right and back onto the road. The vehicle has then commenced to rotate or yaw in a clockwise direction. It was still in…

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 Jones

Details

AGLC: R v Jones [2012] SADC 131
Case: [2012] SADC 131
Decision Date: 19 October 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Jones, the respondent, Jones, was charged with aggravated causing death by dangerous driving. The incident occurred when Jones's vehicle veered off a country road onto the verge at night, before returning to the road and rolling over, resulting in the death of the victim. Jones claimed that he was evading a kangaroo at the time of the accident, and his blood alcohol concentration was significantly elevated. The court had to determine whether Jones's actions constituted dangerous driving and if the victim's interference with the vehicle's steering contributed to the incident.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether Jones's actions amounted to dangerous driving and if the victim's interference with the steering of the vehicle was a factor in the accident. The court needed to consider the circumstances under which the incident occurred, including Jones's blood alcohol concentration, his alleged attempt to evade a kangaroo, and the impact of the victim's actions on the vehicle's control. Furthermore, the court had to assess the causal link between Jones's dangerous driving and the resulting death.

The court found that Jones's actions constituted dangerous driving, as his high blood alcohol concentration and the circumstances of the incident demonstrated a significant departure from the standard of care expected of a reasonable driver. The court rejected Jones's claim that he was evading a kangaroo, finding that it did not excuse his dangerous driving. The court also found that the victim's interference with the steering did not contribute to the accident, as it was a reaction to the vehicle's sudden movement caused by Jones's dangerous driving. Consequently, the court held that Jones was guilty of aggravated causing death by dangerous driving.

The court ordered that Jones be sentenced for his conviction of aggravated causing death by dangerous driving, with the specifics of the sentence to be determined in a subsequent proceeding. The court emphasised the gravity of Jones's actions and the importance of holding him accountable for the loss of life resulting from his dangerous driving.

Orders