R v Pettman - [2007] QCA 233

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Pettman [2007] QCA 233

PARTIES:

R
v
PETTMAN, Dale Gordon
(appellant/applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 39 of 2007
DC No 1927 of 2006

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction & Sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

Orders delivered ex tempore on 16 July 2007
Reasons delivered on 20 July 2007

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

16 July 2007

JUDGES:

de Jersey CJ, Williams and Jerrard JJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE VERDICT – WHERE APPEAL ALLOWED – where appellant convicted of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death – where appellant sentenced to three years imprisonment with a parole release date of 2 February 2008 – where appellant disqualified from holding a driver's licence for a period of four years – where evidence suggested vehicle driven by deceased was unroadworthy and poorly illuminated – where collision occurred in the early hours of the morning – where road on which the appellant was driving was also poorly illuminated – where jury had to be satisfied that the driving of the appellant was dangerous and that there was fault on his part – whether evidence could support a guilty verdict – whether verdict unsafe and unsatisfactory

R v Gosney [1971] 2 QB 674
R v Webb [1986] 2 Qd R 446

COUNSEL:

C W Heaton for the appellant
M J Copley for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

de JERSEY CJ: I have had the advantage of reading the reasons for judgment of Williams JA, with which I agree.

WILLIAMS JA: The appellant was convicted on 2 February 2007 of the offence of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death and sentenced to three years imprisonment with a parole release of 2 February 2008. He was also disqualified from holding a driving licence for a period of four years. He appealed against his conviction on a number of grounds, and on 16 July 2007 this Court, after hearing oral argument, ordered that the appeal be allowed, the conviction set aside, and that a verdict of acquittal be entered. That also meant that the sentence, including the disqualification, was set aside. On that date the Court stated that reasons for allowing the appeal would be published later.

In opening the prosecution relied on the particular that the appellant was too tired to drive safely. But the evidence was that he had had a rest, including a sleep, near Toowoomba for over seven hours, and had only been driving for about one and a half hours when the incident occurred. In the light of that evidence the real issue for the jury, as was reflected in the summing up, was whether or not…

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 Pettman

Details

AGLC: R v Pettman [2007] QCA 233
Case: [2007] QCA 233
Decision Date: 20 July 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal concerns the conviction of the appellant for dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death. The appellant was sentenced to three years imprisonment with a parole release date set for 2 February 2008 and was also disqualified from holding a driver's licence for a period of four years. The incident occurred when the vehicle driven by the deceased collided with a vehicle driven by the appellant, resulting in the death of the deceased. The deceased's vehicle was reportedly unroadworthy and poorly illuminated, and the collision took place in the early hours of the morning on a road that was also poorly illuminated.

The legal issues central to this appeal revolved around the sufficiency of the evidence to support the jury's verdict that the appellant's driving was dangerous and at fault. The appellant argued that the verdict was unreasonable or insupportable given the circumstances of the case. The crux of the matter was whether the evidence could logically and reasonably support a guilty verdict, particularly considering the conditions of the road and the state of the deceased's vehicle.

The court found that the evidence was such that no reasonable jury, properly directed, could have found the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The poor road and vehicle conditions, coupled with the time of the incident, created significant doubt as to whether the appellant's driving was the primary cause of the collision. Consequently, the court concluded that the verdict was unsafe and unsatisfactory. The appeal was therefore allowed, and the conviction was quashed.

Orders