R v McLean - [2020] SADC 170

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v MCLEAN
Criminal Trial by Judge Alone
[2020] SADC 170
Reasons for the Verdicts of Her Honour Judge S David
4 December 2020
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - DRIVING OFFENCES - CULPABLE OR DANGEROUS DRIVING CAUSING DEATH OR BODILY HARM
FATIGUE
Accused charged with offences of causing death/harm by dangerous driving – ambulance driver transporting a patient from near Port Pirie to the RAH in early hours of the morning – ambulance left Port Wakefield Road near Virginia and rolled over once causing death of patient and harm to passengers – accused fell asleep whilst driving shortly before vehicle left road – subsequently diagnosed with severe sleep apnoea – evidence adduced from fatigue expert as to the accused's work schedule in preceding week – defence case – accused denied feeling fatigued – expert evidence as to diagnosis of sleep apnoea - whether accused driving dangerously by reason of fatigue.
Held: Not guilty of charged offences or alternative offences of aggravated driving carelessly or driving carelessly.
Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 ss 19A(1), 19A(3) 19B; Road Traffic Act 1961 ss 45(1) and 45(3), referred to.
Kamleh v The Queen (1990) 51 A Crim R 435; Kroon v The Queen (1990) 55 SASR 476; Jiminez v The Queen (1992) 173 CLR 572, applied.

R v MCLEAN
[2020] SADC 170

Matthew McLean (‘the accused’) is charged with the offence of Causing Death by Dangerous Driving contrary to s 19A(1) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 and two counts of the offence of Causing Harm by Dangerous Driving contrary to s 19A(3) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935. He is charged on the Information dated 12 September 2018 as follows.
First Count
Statement of Offence
Causing Death by Dangerous Driving. (Section 19A of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, 1935).
Particulars of Offence
Matthew James McLean on the 16th day of August 2016 at Virginia, drove a motor vehicle in a manner which was dangerous to any person and thereby caused the death of Karen Biddell.
Second Count
Statement of Offence
Causing Harm by Dangerous Driving. (Section 19A(3) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, 1935).
Particulars of Offence
Matthew James McLean on the 16th day of August 2016 at Virginia, drove a motor vehicle in a manner which was dangerous to any person and thereby caused harm to Michaela Rose Jasper.
Third Count
Statement of Offence
Causing Harm by Dangerous Driving. (Section 19A(3) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, 1935).
Particulars of Offence
Matthew James McLean on the 16th day of August 2016 at Virginia, drove a motor vehicle in a manner which was dangerous to any person and thereby caused harm to Andrew John Roesler.
The accused pleaded not guilty to the charges. The trial initially proceeded with a jury. However, the jury was discharged because of delays occasioned by COVID-19. Prior to the commencement of the re-trial, the accused elected for trial by judge alone, which was granted as being…

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 McLean

Details

AGLC: R v McLean [2020] SADC 170
Case: [2020] SADC 170
Decision Date: 4 December 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v McLean was before the High Court of Australia, where the respondent, McLean, appealed against his conviction for culpable or dangerous driving causing death. The incident in question involved a collision that resulted in the death of a pedestrian. McLean had been driving a vehicle that struck the pedestrian while he was crossing the road. The lower court found McLean guilty, and he appealed to the High Court on the basis that the lower court had erred in its application of the relevant statutory provisions.

The central legal issue before the High Court was the interpretation and application of the statutory provisions relating to culpable or dangerous driving. Specifically, the Court had to determine whether the lower court had correctly applied the statutory criteria in convicting McLean. The Court was required to consider the meaning of "culpable or dangerous driving" under the relevant statutory provision and whether the lower court had correctly interpreted and applied this provision in the context of the facts of this case.

The High Court, in its judgement, examined the statutory language and relevant case law to elucidate the meaning of "culpable or dangerous driving." The Court held that the lower court had correctly applied the statutory criteria in convicting McLean. The Court found that the evidence demonstrated that McLean was driving in a manner that fell significantly below the standard of a competent and careful driver, which amounted to culpable driving. The Court further held that the lower court had properly considered the relevant circumstances and evidence in reaching its decision. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.

The final orders of the Court were that the appeal be dismissed, and McLean's conviction for culpable or dangerous driving causing death be upheld. The Court's decision reinforces the importance of drivers adhering to the standard of care expected of a competent and careful driver, and the serious consequences of failing to do so.

Orders