R v MC Dermottroe - [2008] SADC 45

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v MCDERMOTTROE
[2008] SADC 45
Decision of His Honour Chief Judge Worthington
23 April 2008
CRIMINAL LAW - EVIDENCE
Causing death by driving in a manner dangerous to the public - dispute of facts - blood alcohol content of defendant at time of collision - aggravating factor - unreliable evidence - onus of proof - finding: blood alcohol content at least 0.11%.
R v Payne (2004) 89 SASR 49; Anderson v The Queen (1993) 177 CLR 520, applied.

R v MCDERMOTTROE
[2008] SADC 45

The defendant, Edward Gerard McDermottroe, has pleaded guilty to causing the death of Robin Martin Duncan on Onkaparinga Valley Road, Woodside on 9 November 2004 by driving a motor vehicle in a manner which was dangerous to the public. However there is a dispute about the involvement of alcohol.
At about 8.15pm that day, Mr Duncan took his partner, Scott Bester, from Woodside, where they lived, to collect Mr Bester’s car from Gilbert Motors at Mt Barker. On the way, Mr Bester noticed that part of the dashboard lighting in Mr Duncan’s Holden Commodore station wagon was not working and so it was not possible to clearly read the speedometer. It was decided that on the return journey to Woodside Mr Duncan would follow Mr Bester who would set the pace according to the speed limit. Subsequent investigations have revealed that, because of a blown fuse, the tail lights on Mr Duncan’s station wagon were not operating. One headlight was not working either.
These two vehicles were travelling north along Onkaparinga Valley Road which has a general speed limit of 100kph, but there is an 80kph buffer zone just before the township of Woodside. The defendant was also driving north towards Woodside, coming up behind Mr Duncan’s vehicle. At a point about 400 metres inside the 80kph buffer zone, the defendant’s Mazda station wagon hit the rear of Mr Duncan’s Commodore. As a result, Mr Duncan’s vehicle rotated to the eastern side of the road and collided with a tree. Mr Duncan sustained multiple injuries. He survived the impact but died at the scene at about 9.45pm, at which time a paramedic declared life extinct.
The defendant’s vehicle went off to the western side of the road and collided with a tree which tore off the right front wheel. It then sideswiped another tree before coming to rest near the fenceline of a property owned by Mr and Mrs Cowling. The defendant suffered some abrasions and was conscious of a painful sternum. One or more of the air bags in his car had been activated and for some time he found it difficult to breathe. The precise time at which he was removed from the scene by ambulance is not before the court, but Dr Jarrod Koh states that he saw him in the Emergency Department of the Royal Adelaide Hospital at about 10.30pm. According to a statement by Bruce Cameron, in whose ambulance the defendant travelled,…

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 MC Dermottroe

Details

AGLC: R v MC Dermottroe [2008] SADC 45
Case: [2008] SADC 45
Decision Date: 23 April 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v MC Dermottroe, the accused faced a charge of causing death by driving in a manner dangerous to the public. The key dispute centred on the defendant's blood alcohol content at the time of the collision, which was crucial to determine whether it constituted an aggravating factor. The High Court of Australia was tasked with deciding whether the evidence presented was reliable enough to establish the defendant's blood alcohol content at the time of the incident.

The court had to address several legal issues, including the onus of proof in relation to the defendant's blood alcohol content. The prosecution argued that the evidence, while not definitive, was sufficient to establish that the defendant's blood alcohol content was at least 0.11%. The defence contested the reliability of the evidence, asserting that it did not meet the necessary standard to prove the defendant's blood alcohol content beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court concluded that the evidence, though not entirely reliable, was sufficient to establish the defendant's blood alcohol content at the time of the collision. The court found that the evidence, when considered in conjunction with other factors, established the blood alcohol content at least at 0.11%, which was enough to meet the onus of proof. The court's reasoning hinged on the cumulative effect of the evidence, which, despite its unreliability, provided a reasonable basis to infer the defendant's blood alcohol content.

The final orders of the court confirmed the defendant's conviction, with the finding that the blood alcohol content was at least 0.11% being a significant aggravating factor in the case. This decision underscores the importance of the reliability of evidence in criminal proceedings and the court's ability to weigh such evidence when determining the onus of proof.

Orders