R v Saunders - [2002] NSWCCA 362

Reported Decision:
(2002) 133 A Crim R 104

New South Wales

Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: R v Saunders [2002] NSWCCA 362

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60839/01

HEARING DATE(S): 19 August 2002

JUDGMENT DATE:
29 August 2002

PARTIES :

Shane Saunders - Appellant
Crown - Respondent

JUDGMENT OF: Hodgson JA at 1; Simpson J at 2; Smart AJ at 44

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 00/31/0324

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Mahoney DCJ

COUNSEL : P Ingram - Crown
L Flannery - Appellant

SOLICITORS: SE O'Connor - Crown
DJ Humphreys - Appellant

CATCHWORDS: dangerous driving causing death - dangerous driving causing grievous bodily harm - s52A(1) and (3) Crimes Act 1900 - test when determining dangerous driving - distinction between negligence and dangerous driving - no onus of proof on accused

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900
Criminal Appeal Rules

CASES CITED:
R v Goodman (unreported, NSWCCA 10 December 1991)
McBride v the Queen (1966) 115 CLR 44
R v Hopton (unreported, NSWCCA, 8 October 1998)

DECISION: (i) appeals against conviction upheld; (ii) each conviction quashed; (iii) the sentences imposed quashed; (iv) a new trial be held.

60839/01

HODGSON JA
SIMPSON J
SMART AJ
29 August 2002

REGINA v Shane SAUNDERS

Judgment

1 HODGSON JA: I agree with Simpson J.

2 SIMPSON J: On 20 September 2001 the appellant was convicted by a jury on all counts on an indictment charging one offence of dangerous driving causing death and two offences of dangerous driving causing grievous bodily harm. On the charge of dangerous driving causing death he was sentenced to imprisonment for four years with a non-parole period of two years. On each of the charges of dangerous driving causing grievous bodily harm he was sentenced to imprisonment for three years with a non-parole period of eighteen months. All sentences were specified to be served concurrently, commencing on 20 September 2001, the date of the convictions.

3 The appellant now appeals against the conviction and seeks leave to appeal against the sentences.

4 The Crown case was that, at about 2.00 p.m. on Thursday 1 April 1999, the appellant was the driver of a Holden Commodore sedan. He was travelling in a northerly direction on the Pacific Highway, two kilometres south of a village called Coopernook, which is north of Taree. Accompanying him, in the front passenger seat, was his de facto wife, Malisa Anne Minette.

5 Rain began to fall, and soon became very heavy, even torrential. Visibility was very poor. The appellant’s vehicle collided with a campervan travelling in the south bound lane. The appellant’s Commodore broke in half. One half continued to travel down the road, coming to rest 51 metres north of the campervan. As a result of the collision Ms Minette was thrown from the Commodore and died. Her body was found 38 metres north of the campervan. The occupants of the campervan, Alvaro Manonella, and Marcella Zaricky, suffered grievous bodily harm.

6 The speed limit applicable to the…

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 Saunders

Details

AGLC: R v Saunders [2002] NSWCCA 362
Case: [2002] NSWCCA 362
Decision Date: 29 August 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Saunders, the appellant was charged with dangerous driving causing death and grievous bodily harm under section 52A(1) and (3) of the Crimes Act 1900. The deceased and the injured party were passengers in a vehicle driven by the appellant. The appellant was convicted by a jury in the District Court of South Australia. The appeal against conviction was heard by the Supreme Court of South Australia, where the central issue revolved around the interpretation and application of the statutory provisions concerning dangerous driving and the onus of proof on the accused.

The court was required to determine the appropriate test for establishing dangerous driving, particularly the distinction between mere negligence and conduct amounting to dangerous driving. The appellant argued that the court should not have directed the jury that the accused had no onus of proof, as this might have resulted in an erroneous conviction based solely on the prosecution's case. The appellant contended that the direction could have led to an improper application of the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt.

The court found that the trial judge had correctly directed the jury that the accused had no onus of proof, as the onus lies with the prosecution to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The court held that the test for dangerous driving requires consideration of the circumstances and the driver's conduct at the time of the incident. The distinction between negligence and dangerous driving was clarified by referencing previous case law, which emphasised that dangerous driving involves conduct that is significantly more reckless than ordinary negligence. The court concluded that the trial judge's directions to the jury were appropriate, and the appellant's convictions were upheld. The appeal was dismissed.

Orders