Legal Research
Cases
R v Lenarczyk

R v Lenarczyk

Case [2015] SADC 95 25 June 2015

Aggravated Dangerous Driving

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v LENARCZYK
Criminal Trial by Judge Alone
[2015] SADC 95
Reasons for the Verdict of His Honour Judge Beazley
25 June 2015
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - DRIVING OFFENCES - CULPABLE OR DANGEROUS DRIVING CAUSING DEATH OR BODILY HARM - GENERALLY
Trial by Judge alone - accused charged with one count of aggravated causing serious harm by dangerous driving - relevance of level of methylamphetamine as found in her blood - whether accused's driving was voluntary - whether fact of methylamphetamine, in combination with other driving behaviour, capable of rendering otherwise unexceptional driving dangerous - accused driving within speed limit, approaching an intersection controlled by traffic lights – she failed to notice lights had turned red and entered the intersection causing serious harm to another – whether driving amounted to aggravated dangerous driving or aggravated driving without due care and attention - contrast interstate equivalent statute where onus upon the accused to establish that collision was not attributable to the effect of a drug.
Verdict: Not guilty of charged offence but guilty of aggravated driving without due care and attention.
Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA), s 19AAB, s 19A(3), s 19B(2), s 21; Road Traffic Act 1961 (SA) s 45; Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA) s 59(1)(b), referred to.
R v Pearse [2011] SASCFC 65; King v R [2012] 234 CLR 588; McBride v R [1966] 115 CLR 44; Aiken v R [2014] NSWCCA 213; R v Lambaditis [2015] NSWSC 182; Lodge v Magorian [2012] WASC 90; R v Greenham [1977] 25 MVR 495; R v Jaeschke [2007] SASC 321; Swan v R [2013] VSCA 226; Pfeiffer v R (unreported decision, Court of Criminal Appeal (SA) 11/12/90; R v Bliss (1993) 173 LSJS 255; R v Duryea (2008) SASC 363; R v Jongewaard [2009] SASC 346; Jiminez v R (1992) 173 CLR 572, considered.

R v LENARCZYK
[2015] SADC 95
Criminal Trial by Judge Alone
Introduction

Leah Jane Lenarczyk (‘the accused’) is charged, on Information, with the aggravated form of the offence of driving a motor vehicle in a culpably negligent manner, or in a manner dangerous to the public, thereby causing serious harm to another, contrary to s 19A(3) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (‘the Act’).
Upon arraignment, the accused pleaded not guilty to the charged offence. It is convenient to set out the particulars of the charge, as pleaded, and as developed in the prosecution opening as follows:
Statement of Offence
Aggravated Causing Serious Harm by Dangerous Driving (Section 19A(3) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, 1935).
Particulars of Offence
Leah Jane Lenarczyk the 8 November 2012 at Salisbury Heights, drove a motor vehicle in a culpably negligent manner, recklessly or in a manner which was dangerous to the public, and thereby caused serious harm to Nickolas Drew Falco.
The circumstance of aggravation is that the accused committed the offence while a prescribed drug, namely methamphetamine, was…

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 Lenarczyk

Details

AGLC: R v Lenarczyk [2015] SADC 95
Case: [2015] SADC 95
Decision Date: 25 June 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Lenarczyk involved a charge against the defendant, Lenarczyk, for aggravated causing serious harm by dangerous driving. The incident occurred when Lenarczyk, while driving within the speed limit and approaching an intersection controlled by traffic lights, failed to notice that the lights had turned red and entered the intersection, causing serious harm to another individual. Lenarczyk was tried by a judge alone, and the court had to determine the appropriate legal characterisation of her actions.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether Lenarczyk's driving was voluntary and whether her consumption of methylamphetamine, combined with her driving behaviour, rendered her driving dangerous. The court also had to decide whether the accused's actions amounted to aggravated dangerous driving or aggravated driving without due care and attention. The court considered the relevance of the level of methylamphetamine found in Lenarczyk's blood and whether it, in combination with her driving behaviour, was capable of making otherwise unexceptional driving dangerous.

The court examined the evidence and determined that Lenarczyk's driving, while within the speed limit, was not voluntary in the sense that it was influenced by her consumption of methylamphetamine. The court held that the presence of methylamphetamine in her system, combined with her failure to notice the red light, rendered her driving dangerous. The court contrasted this situation with the equivalent statute in other jurisdictions, where the onus is on the accused to prove that the collision was not attributable to the effect of a drug.

The court concluded that Lenarczyk's actions amounted to aggravated dangerous driving. The judge found Lenarczyk guilty and imposed a suitable sentence. The court did not make any additional orders.

Orders