R v Pannett - [2015] SASCFC 52

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Court of Criminal Appeal)
R v PANNETT
[2015] SASCFC 52
Judgment of The Court of Criminal Appeal
(The Honourable Justice Gray, The Honourable Justice Sulan and The Honourable Justice Nicholson)
28 April 2015
TRAFFIC LAW - DEFINITIONS - OTHER DEFINITIONS
TRAFFIC LAW - OFFENCES - GENERALLY
CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE - APPEAL DISMISSED
Appeal against convictions. The appellant was convicted of two counts of committing an aggravated act likely to cause harm and one count of aggravated driving in a manner dangerous to escape police pursuit. The circumstances of the offending were that the appellant was riding a motorcycle in the early hours of the morning in a public reserve while intoxicated and with a pillion passenger. The appellant rode his motorcycle in the direction of police officers who had attempted to apprehend him, nearly causing a collision. The appellant, having been sprayed with capsicum by police, rode out of the reserve onto a public road and crashed into a Stobie pole.
Whether the verdict for committing an aggravated act likely to cause harm was unsafe and unsatisfactory. Whether ‘the public’ included the defendant’s pillion passenger. Whether the defendant and his pillion passenger were skylarking. Whether it was open to the jury to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant’s riding of a motorcycle was dangerous to the public.
Held per the Court (dismissing the appeal):
1. The jury were in the best position to assess the truthfulness and reliability of all the witnesses. The conviction for committing an aggravated act likely to cause harm was open on the evidence.
2. The defendant’s pillion passenger was a member of the public for the purpose of the offence of driving in a manner dangerous to escape police pursuit.
3. The evidence did not support a finding of skylarking by the defendant and his pillion passenger.
4. Whether the defendant’s driving was dangerous was a question of fact for the jury. It was open for the jury to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant’s driving of his motorbike was driving in a manner dangerous to the public.
Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) s 19AC(1) and s 29(3), referred to.
R v S [1991] 22 NSWLR 548; Farah Constructions Pty Ltd v Say-Dee Pty Ltd (2007) 230 CLR 89; Firth v Prestwood (1987) 44 SASR 427; Graham v Police (2001) 122 A Crim R 152; Senior v Police [2005] SASC 88; Jiminez v The Queen (1992) 173 CLR 572, considered.

R v PANNETT
[2015] SASCFC 52
Court of Criminal Appeal: Gray, Sulan and Nicholson JJ
THE COURT.

This is an appeal against convictions.
At his trial before a jury in the District Court, the defendant and appellant, Trevor Daniel Pannett, pleaded not guilty to four counts of committing an aggravated act likely to cause harm[1] and one count of aggravated driving in a manner dangerous to escape police pursuit.[2]…

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 Pannett

Details

AGLC: R v Pannett [2015] SASCFC 52
Case: [2015] SASCFC 52
Decision Date: 28 April 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of *R v Pannett* concerned an appeal against convictions for driving offences. The appellant, Pannett, had been convicted by a jury of driving in a manner dangerous to the public and of driving under the influence of alcohol. The appeal was heard by Gray, Sulan, and Nicholson JJ in a court that reviewed the jury's verdict.

The central legal issue before the appellate court was whether the jury's verdict that the appellant's driving was dangerous was unreasonable or insupportable, having regard to the evidence presented at trial. This required the court to consider whether there was sufficient evidence upon which a reasonable jury could have concluded, beyond reasonable doubt, that the appellant's conduct constituted dangerous driving.

The court reasoned that the question of whether driving is dangerous is a question of fact for the jury. In this instance, the jury had before them evidence that the appellant was intoxicated, affected by capsicum spray, swerving on the road, drove in close proximity to a police vehicle, and ultimately left the road, mounting a kerb and travelling onto a footpath. The court found that these circumstances, coupled with the subsequent collision with a Stobie pole, provided a sufficient evidentiary basis for the jury to conclude that the appellant's driving was dangerous to the public. Accordingly, the appeal against both convictions was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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

Whether the defendant’s driving was dangerous was a question of fact for the jury. There was evidence from which the jury could conclude beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant’s driving of his motorbike was driving in a manner dangerous to the public. In particular, the evidence allowed the jury to find that the defendant was intoxicated, was suffering the effects of having been sprayed with capsicum, was swerving on the road, rode close enough to a police car to create a risk of a collision and drove off the road, up the kerb and onto a footpath. The consequences of the defendant’s driving, namely a collision with a Stobie pole, support the conclusion that the defendant’s driving was dangerous to the public.Conclusion We would dismiss the appeal against both convictions.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.