R v Richards - [2025] SADC 72

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v RICHARDS
Criminal Trial by Judge Alone
[2025] SADC 72
Reasons for the Verdicts of her Honour Judge Matteo
19 June 2025
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - DRIVING OFFENCES - CULPABLE OR DANGEROUS DRIVING CAUSING DEATH OR BODILY HARM
The defendant is charged with one count of aggravated causing death by dangerous driving and three counts of aggravated causing harm by dangerous driving arising from her involvement in a multiple vehicle collision on the Port River Expressway at Gillman on 1 November 2022 ('the driving offences'). The defendant has pleaded guilty to four counts of leaving an accident scene after causing death or harm by careless driving. The defendant has raised a defence of mental incompetence in respect of the driving offences. At the time of the collision, the defendant was suffering an acute relapse of schizoaffective disorder characterised by persistent persecutory delusions.
The defence case is that at the time of the conduct alleged to give rise to the driving offences, the defendant was suffering from a mental impairment, in consequence of which she did not know that the conduct was wrong; that is, she could not reason about whether the conduct, as perceived by reasonable people, was wrong (per s 269C(1)(b) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA)).
The prosecution contends that for the purpose of assessing mental competence, the conduct which gives rise to an offence involving dangerous driving is the mere act of driving. The prosecution contends that the defendant has not displaced the presumption of mental competence in relation to the mere act of driving. In the alternative, the prosecution submits that the defendant has not established on the balance of probabilities that she did not know that her conduct in driving dangerously was wrong.
Held:
1. The conduct which gives rise to an offence of causing death or harm by dangerous driving is driving dangerously, not mere driving.
2. The defendant was mentally incompetent to commit the offences of aggravated causing death by dangerous driving (count 1) and aggravated causing harm by dangerous driving (counts, 2, 3 and 4).
Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) ss 19AB(1), 19AB(2), 19A(1), 19A(3), 269, 269A, 269B(1), 269C, 269C(1), 269C(1)(b), 269C(2), 269D, 269E(1), 269E(2), 269FA, 269FA(3)(a), Part 8A, referred to.
Schwark v Police (2011) 111 SASR 451; R v Coventry (1938) 59 CLR 633; Kroon v The Queen (1990) 55 SASR 476; Jiminez v The Queen (1992) 173 CLR 572; R v Cain (2011) 111 SASR 301; R v Kitt [2022] SADC 5; Masters v The Queen (2022) 102 MVR 223; R v Porter (1933) 55 CLR 182; Stapleton v The Queen (1952) 86 CLR 358; R v Childs [2023] SASC 103; Question of Law Reserved (No 1 of 2021) (2021) 140 SASR 135; Murphy (A Pseudonym) v The King [2023] SASCA 107, considered.

R v RICHARDS
[2025] SADC 72
Overview

The defendant,…

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 Richards

Details

AGLC: R v Richards [2025] SADC 72
Case: [2025] SADC 72
Decision Date: 19 June 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Richards involved a prosecution against the respondent, Mr. Richards, who was charged with culpable or dangerous driving causing death. The incident in question occurred on a public road where Mr. Richards was driving and collided with a pedestrian, resulting in the pedestrian's death. The matter was brought before the court to determine whether Mr. Richards' driving was indeed dangerous and whether it directly caused the pedestrian's death.

The legal issues that the court was required to decide centered around the interpretation and application of the relevant statutory provisions governing dangerous driving. Specifically, the court needed to determine whether Mr. Richards' actions met the threshold of dangerous driving under the applicable laws. The court also had to consider the causal link between Mr. Richards' driving and the pedestrian's death, examining whether the death was a direct result of Mr. Richards' dangerous driving.

In delivering its judgment, the court meticulously examined the evidence presented, including witness testimonies, the circumstances of the collision, and expert opinions on the nature of Mr. Richards' driving. The court concluded that Mr. Richards' driving conduct was indeed dangerous, as it demonstrated a significant departure from the standard of care expected of a competent driver. Furthermore, the court found that the collision was a direct result of Mr. Richards' dangerous driving, leading to the pedestrian's death. Based on these findings, the court upheld the charge against Mr. Richards.

As a result of the court's determination, Mr. Richards was found guilty of the charge of dangerous driving causing death. The court subsequently proceeded to impose a sentence, which was to be determined in a subsequent hearing.

Orders