District Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: R v Schilder (No 1) [2013] NSWDC 23 Hearing dates: 2-3 May 2012, 25-28 September 2012, 10-14 December 2012 Decision date: 23 January 2013 Before: Neilson DCJ Decision: In relation to the offence of Aggravated dangerous driving occasioning death, acquitted
In relation to the offence of Dangerous driving occasioning death, convicted
In relation to the offence of Aggravated dangerous driving occasioning grievous bodily harm, acquitted
In relation to the offence of Dangerous driving occasioning grievous bodily harm, acquitted
Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - Trial by judge alone - Aggravated dangerous driving occasioning death - Aggravated dangerous driving occasioning grievous bodily harm - Circumstance of aggravation - Whether accused drove vehicle exceeding speed limit by 45 km/h - Accused suffered complex partial epileptic seizure leading to collision - Accused previously involved in motor accidents caused by his epilepsy - Accused lied to psychologist and RTA to obtain renewal of licence - Accused was sleep deprived - Speed of accused's vehicle prior to his having a seizure unknown - Expert evidence - Accident reconstruction - Question of speed of accused's vehicle at time of collision - Reliability of lay opinion as to speed - Issue of voluntariness of accused's actions following seizure Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 s 52A
Evidence Act 1995 s 165Cases Cited: Gillett v R [2006] NSWCCA 370
Hill v Baxter [1958] 1 QB 277
Jiminez v R [1992] HCA 14; 173 CLR 572; 106 ALR 162
R v Gillett [2005] NSWDC 20Category: Principal judgment Parties: Regina (Crown)
Daniel Gordon Schilder (Accused)Representation: Ms K Ratcliffe (Crown)
Ms D Yehia SC (Accused)
Ms L Cocca (Crown)
Ms S Foggo (Accused)
File Number(s): 2011/055324
Judgment
Introduction
On 12 September 2010 Mr Daniel Gordon Schilder ("the accused") was driving south along the Princes Highway at Bomaderry. He was behind the steering wheel of a white 1993 Ford Fairmont sedan registered number AV 64 ZB ("the white Fairmont"). He had been delivering take-away food for a Chinese restaurant in Nowra, the Delicious Canton. His shift was from 5.30pm to 7.30pm. On this evening he had completed 5 deliveries and at 6.30pm he left the restaurant to make a delivery at North Nowra and another at Bomaderry. He had completed those deliveries and was returning to Nowra.
Around 6.55pm the accused's white Fairmont crossed over the central median strip dividing northbound and southbound traffic on the Highway, at a point just north of the T-intersection of the Highway and Bolong Road. The white Fairmont then travelled about 270 metres south in one of the two northbound lanes of the Highway to the intersection of the Highway and Illaroo Road, which is immediately north of the two bridges which carry the Highway over the Shoalhaven River. Illaroo Road makes a T-intersection with the Highway on its western side. This intersection is governed by traffic control lights.
The traffic lights turned red for those travelling on the Highway. They turned green for traffic turning…
Continue reading R v Schilder (No 1)
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Schilder (No 1) [2013] NSWDC 23
- Case
- [2013] NSWDC 23
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues the court needed to address included the applicability of the aggravating factor of speeding, the credibility of the accused's claim of an epileptic seizure, and the extent to which his previous history of motor accidents and deception about his medical condition affected his culpability. Furthermore, the court had to consider the reliability of lay witness statements about the vehicle's speed and the voluntariness of the accused's actions post-seizure. The court also needed to determine if the accused's actions, if any, were voluntary following the seizure.
The court found that the accused's epileptic seizure, which occurred while he was sleep deprived and had lied about his medical history, led to the collision. However, due to the uncertainty about the speed of the vehicle at the time of the collision and the lack of evidence that the accused's actions were voluntary following the seizure, the court acquitted him of the charges of aggravated dangerous driving. The court did convict the accused of dangerous driving occasioning death, but acquitted him of all other charges related to grievous bodily harm. The court's reasoning hinged on the absence of clear evidence that the accused's actions were voluntary and the uncertainty surrounding the vehicle's speed at the time of the collision.
Orders
Orders of the court
In relation to the offence of Aggravated dangerous driving occasioning death, acquitted
In relation to the offence of Dangerous driving occasioning death, convicted
In relation to the offence of Aggravated dangerous driving occasioning grievous bodily harm, acquitted
In relation to the offence of Dangerous driving occasioning grievous bodily harm, acquitted
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.