R v Lidgard

Case [2022] NSWDC 445


District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Lidgard [2022] NSWDC 445
Hearing dates: 15 March, 16 March, 17 March, 18 March, 21 March, 22 March, 23 March, 24 March, 25 March, 23 May, 24 May, 25 May, 26 May, 27 May, 30 May, 31 May, 1 June, 2 June, 3 June, 6 June, 7 June, 8 June, 9 June, 29 August, 30 August, 31 August, 1 September, 2 September, 5 September 2022
Decision date: 30 September 2022
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Colefax SC DCJ
Decision:

Not guilty on Counts 1-4 inclusive

Catchwords:

CRIME - judge alone trial - dangerous driving occasioning death - dangerous driving occasioning grievous bodily harm

Legislation Cited:

Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) s165 and s191

Cases Cited:

Jiminez v The Queen [1992] 173 CLR 572

Toohey v R [2020] NSWCCA 166

Category:Principal judgment
Parties:

Rex (Crown)

Brendon Paul Lidgard (Accused)
Representation:

Ms Knowles with Ms Hurford (Crown Prosecutors)

Mr Buchen SC with Mr Wong (Counsel for the accused)
File Number(s): 2020/00204504
Publication restriction: Statutory Non Publication orders of the names of the complainants in Counts 1 to 3 inclusive and of any other matter that might identify any of them, directly or indirectly.
  1. As at 10 July 2020, Brendon Paul Lidgard was:

  1. 44 years old;

  2. a long-term sufferer of Type 1 diabetes (since he was 17 years old);

  3. the holder of a NSW heavy vehicle driver’s licence (since November 2009); and

  4. employed as a professional heavy vehicle driver by Boral Transport Limited.

  1. Type 1 diabetes is a condition in which the pancreas is unable to produce sufficient insulin to maintain blood glucose levels.

  2. Diabetics need to take insulin to chemically replicate the physical process of producing insulin.

  3. Diabetics can only access insulin through prescriptions written by either a general practitioner or the relevant medical specialist (an endocrinologist).

  4. At the relevant time, the administration of insulin was effected by injection – usually by the diabetic. Commonly, a diabetic, such as Mr Lidgard, would inject himself with a fast-acting insulin dose 3 times a day (before eating breakfast, lunch and dinner); and with a slower acting dose at night. Humalog is such a fast-acting insulin dose and Lantus is such a slower acting dose.

  5. It is possible for a diabetic to “split” his evening fast-acting dose and to consume part of that dose between lunch and dinner – and to reduce the dinner dose accordingly.

  6. When blood sugar levels drop below “normal”, a hypoglycaemic event may occur.

  7. Hypoglycaemic events can vary in severity. If very mild, there may be no detectible symptoms. If mild, symptoms may include feeling vague, palpitations, sweats, tiredness and not thinking clearly. These symptoms are easily recognised by diabetics. However, once a person has had Type 1 diabetes for approximately 15 years, it is not uncommon for that person to have hormonal changes such that he no longer has the usual (warning) symptoms of hypoglycaemia. This results in a condition called hypoglycaemic unawareness. This can cause the diabetic’s blood sugar levels to…

Continue reading R v Lidgard

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Lidgard [2022] NSWDC 445
Case
[2022] NSWDC 445
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Lidgard involved a defendant charged with dangerous driving occasioning death and grievous bodily harm. The trial was held in a court with a single judge, which is permissible under the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) for certain serious offences. The defendant was accused of causing the death of one individual and severe injury to another through reckless driving. The court had to determine whether the defendant's actions met the legal threshold for dangerous driving and if those actions directly resulted in the alleged harm and death.

The court had to consider several legal issues, including the definition and elements of dangerous driving under the relevant statutes. It needed to establish whether the defendant's driving was indeed dangerous, which requires a standard of recklessness or a gross deviation from what a reasonable driver would do. Additionally, the court had to examine the causal link between the defendant's actions and the resulting harm and death. This involved scrutinising the evidence presented and determining whether the harm and death were a direct consequence of the alleged dangerous driving.

In reaching its decision, the court evaluated the evidence and testimonies presented in the trial. It concluded that the prosecution had not proven beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant's driving was dangerous and that it directly caused the death and grievous bodily harm. The court found that the evidence was insufficient to establish the necessary causal link between the defendant's actions and the resulting harm. Consequently, the defendant was acquitted on all counts related to the dangerous driving occasioning death and grievous bodily harm.

Orders

Orders of the court

Not guilty on Counts 1-4 inclusive

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.