R v Sabet

The case of *R v Sabet* involved an appeal against a conviction. The appellant, Mr Sabet, was appealing his conviction, with the primary dispute revolving around the evidence presented at trial, particularly concerning the speed of the appellant's vehicle and the cause of the victim's death. The appeal was heard by Blue, Stanley, and Hinton JJ.

The legal issues before the court included whether the trial judge had adequately addressed expert opinion evidence, specifically the opinion of Mr England regarding the speed of the appellant's vehicle. The court also considered whether the verdict was unreasonable or insupportable having regard to the evidence, and whether there had been a miscarriage of justice due to misdirection or non-direction by the trial judge. The application of the proviso to s 6(1) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) was also implicitly relevant, concerning whether a substantial miscarriage of justice had occurred.

Stanley J, in his reasons, addressed the expert opinion evidence. He concluded that Mr England's opinion as to speed should be rejected as not representing a reasonable possibility, given the overwhelming eyewitness evidence that the victim's body had passed over the roof of the car. The absence of blood or biological material on the car's roof or rear tyre cover was not considered sufficient to doubt the eyewitness accounts. The court found that the eyewitness evidence proved beyond reasonable doubt that the victim's body became airborne due to the collision, and that Mr England's opinion lacked the necessary evidentiary foundation. Consequently, it was not a reasonable possibility that the appellant's vehicle was travelling at a speed slower than the conservative estimate of 83-98 kilometres per hour. The court determined that the collision and the victim's death were proven beyond reasonable doubt to be caused by the appellant's excessive speed and grossly inattentive lookout.

Hinton J agreed with Stanley J's judgment and his treatment of the principles concerning a judge's duty to give reasons in a trial without a jury. Both judges emphasised the importance of adequate reasons for a verdict to enable an appellate court to determine whether the relevant rules of law have been correctly applied and to assess whether a miscarriage of justice has occurred. The appeal was dismissed.