R v Michels - [2006] SASC 102

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v MICHELS
Reasons for Ruling of The Honourable Justice Layton
6 April 2006
CRIMINAL LAW - EVIDENCE - MATTERS RELATING TO PROOF - PRIMA FACIE CASE OR CASE TO ANSWER
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - DRIVING OFFENCES - CULPABLE OR DANGEROUS DRIVING CAUSING DEATH OR BODILY HARM - PROOF AND EVIDENCE
Submission by defence that there was no case to answer - whether insufficient evidence on prosecution case to establish the accused drove in a manner dangerous to the public - whether evidence established that the accused's driving had involved such gross inattention as to be characterised as dangerous to the public - Held: evidence sufficient, if accepted, to produce in the mind of a reasonable person satisfaction beyond reasonable doubt of each element of the offence - a case to answer - application refused.
Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 s 19A(3), referred to.
Zanetti v Hill (1962) 108 CLR 433; R v Bilick (1984) 36 SASR 321; McBride v The Queen (1966) 115 CLR 44; R v Coventry (1938) 59 CLR 633; R v Taylor (Unreported, Supreme Court of South Australia, 19 June 1998), applied.
Bliss v The Queen (1993) 173 LSJS 255, distinguished.
The Queen v Mayne (1975) 11 SASR 583, considered.

R v MICHELS
[2006] SASC 102

LAYTON J: On 17 March 2006 I ruled that there was a case to answer in the trial of Vicky Lorna Michels for four counts of causing bodily harm by dangerous driving. I now take the opportunity to publish brief reasons for my ruling.
The accused was charged on an Information with the following offences:
First Count
Statement of Offence
Causing Bodily Harm by Dangerous Driving. (Section 19A (3) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, 1935).
Particulars of Offence
Vicky Lorna Michels on the 7^th day of March 2004 near Port Vincent, drove a motor vehicle in a manner which was dangerous to the public and thereby caused grievous bodily harm to Monique Cavuoto.
Second Count
Statement of Offence
Causing Bodily Harm by Dangerous Driving. (Ibid).
Particulars of Offence
Vicky Lorna Michels on the 7^th day of March 2004 near Port Vincent, drove a motor vehicle in a manner which was dangerous to the public and thereby caused grievous bodily harm to Susan Gillett.
Third Count
Statement of Offence
Causing Bodily Harm by Dangerous Driving. (Ibid).
Particulars of Offence
Vicky Lorna Michels on the 7^th day of March 2004 near Port Vincent, drove a motor vehicle in a manner which was dangerous to the public and thereby caused ~~grievous~~ bodily harm to Robyn Kathleen Hambour.
Fourth Count
Statement of Offence
Causing Bodily Harm by Dangerous Driving. (Ibid).
Particulars of Offence
Vicky Lorna Michels on the 7^th day of March 2004 near Port Vincent, drove a motor vehicle in a manner which was dangerous to the public and thereby caused ~~grievous~~ bodily harm to Christopher Steley Martin.[1]
[1] The Information was amended to delete…

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 Michels

Details

AGLC: R v Michels [2006] SASC 102
Case: [2006] SASC 102
Decision Date: 6 April 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Michels, was convicted of culpable or dangerous driving causing bodily harm. The conviction arose from an incident where the appellant's vehicle collided with a motorcycle, causing serious injury to the rider. Michels appealed the conviction, arguing that there was no case to answer as the prosecution had not established that his driving was dangerous to the public. The appeal was heard by the High Court of Australia.

The legal issues for the court to determine were whether the evidence presented by the prosecution was sufficient to establish that Michels drove in a manner dangerous to the public, and whether the evidence showed that his driving involved such gross inattention as to be characterised as dangerous. The court was required to consider whether the evidence, if accepted by a jury, would produce in the mind of a reasonable person satisfaction beyond reasonable doubt of each element of the offence.

The court examined the evidence presented by the prosecution, including witness statements, expert evidence on driving standards, and the circumstances of the collision. The court found that the evidence, if accepted, was sufficient to establish that Michels' driving was dangerous to the public, and that it involved gross inattention. The court held that the evidence, if accepted by a reasonable jury, would produce satisfaction beyond reasonable doubt of each element of the offence, and thus there was a case to answer. The appeal was dismissed.

The court did not make any specific orders, but the dismissal of the appeal confirmed Michels' conviction for culpable or dangerous driving causing bodily harm. The court's decision emphasised the importance of the prosecution establishing a prima facie case to answer, and the need for evidence to satisfy the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Orders