R v Nguyen - [2017] SADC 13

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v NGUYEN
Criminal Trial by Judge Alone
[2017] SADC 13
Reasons for the Verdicts of Her Honour Judge Tracey
21 February 2017
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 Death By Dangerous Driving and one count of Aggravated Causing Harm by Dangerous Driving – issue at trial was whether the concentration of methylamphetamine in the accused’s blood was sufficient to affect the accused in such a way as to impact on his ability to drive – whether driving was dangerous.
Held:
Count 1 – Guilty. Count 2 – Guilty.
Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) s 19A(1); Road Traffic Act 1961 (SA) s 47BA, referred to.
R v Kamleh (1990) 51 ACrimR 435; McBride v R (1966) 115 CLR 44; Jiminez v The Queen (1992) 173 CLR 572; R v Duryea [2008] SASC 363; Pfeiffer v The Queen (Unreported CCA South Australia, King CJ, Cox and Olsson JJ 11 December 1990); R v Greenham (1997) 25 MVR 495; Kroon v R (1990) 55 SASR 476, considered.

R v NGUYEN
[2017] SADC 13
Introduction

On 26 December 2013, at about 11 am, Mr Nguyen (‘the accused’) was driving his 1994 Toyota Spacia van (‘the vehicle’) on Fosters Road at Greenacres, not far from where he lived in Clearview. It was a fine, sunny day. The accused’s four year old son Nguyen Le and 14 month old step daughter, Bao Han Nguyen Le were seated in the rear passenger seats of the vehicle. The vehicle veered from its ordinary course, across to the wrong side of the road continuing in a relatively straight line, and collided with a stobie pole.
Bao Han Nguyen Le was taken to the Women’s and Children’s Hospital with an injury to the spinal cord which caused an inability to breathe. Her life support was turned off on 7 January 2014.
Nguyen Le was able to walk from the vehicle but suffered significant injuries that included a laceration to his right forehead, a compound fracture to his right arm and contusions to the chest, abdomen and left hand.
The accused himself had injuries to his legs and had to be cut from the vehicle by Emergency Services. After he was conveyed to the Royal Adelaide Hospital, a sample of blood was taken 75 minutes after the collision disclosing the following drug levels:
·methylamphetamine 0.24 mg/L
·amphetamine 0.02 mg/L
·ketamine 0.9 mg/L
·fentanyl 1 mcg/L
The ketamine and fentanyl are likely to have been provided to the accused by the medical staff in hospital.
The accused is charged with two offences as follows:
First Count
Statement of Offence
Aggravated Causing Death by Dangerous Driving. (Section 19A(1) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, 1935).
Particulars of Offence
Tuan Quoc Nguyen on the 26th day of December 2013 at Greenacres, drove a motor vehicle…

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 Nguyen

Details

AGLC: R v Nguyen [2017] SADC 13
Case: [2017] SADC 13
Decision Date: 21 February 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Nguyen was heard before the court where the defendant, Nguyen, faced charges related to dangerous driving causing death and bodily harm. The prosecution alleged that Nguyen was under the influence of methylamphetamine when he drove, leading to a fatal accident that caused the death of one individual and serious injury to another. The primary focus of the trial was whether the concentration of methylamphetamine in Nguyen's blood was high enough to impair his driving ability, thereby constituting dangerous driving.

The legal issues that the court had to resolve were twofold. Firstly, it was necessary to determine the extent to which the presence of methylamphetamine in Nguyen's system affected his driving capabilities. The court had to consider expert evidence regarding the effects of methylamphetamine at the detected concentration levels and whether this could reasonably impair a driver's ability to operate a vehicle safely. Secondly, the court had to decide if the accused's driving, under the influence of the drug, constituted dangerous driving that led to the tragic outcomes. This involved an assessment of the correlation between the drug's effects and the resulting dangerous driving.

In delivering the judgment, the court meticulously examined the evidence provided, including the expert testimonies on the effects of methylamphetamine and the circumstances surrounding the accident. The court found that the concentration of methylamphetamine in Nguyen's blood was indeed significant enough to impair his driving ability. Based on this finding, the court concluded that Nguyen's driving was indeed dangerous, leading to the charges of aggravated causing death by dangerous driving and aggravated causing harm by dangerous driving being upheld. Consequently, Nguyen was found guilty on both counts.

The final orders of the court reflected the findings, with Nguyen being convicted on both charges. The implications of these findings underscore the serious consequences of driving under the influence of dangerous substances, particularly when it results in fatalities and severe injuries. This case reinforces the legal principle that driving while impaired by drugs can have severe repercussions, both legally and in terms of public safety.

Orders