R v Pannett

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.