R v Schilder (No 1)

In the matter of R v Schilder (No 1), the defendant faced charges of aggravated dangerous driving causing death and grievous bodily harm. The case was heard by the court, which was tasked with determining the culpability of the accused in the fatal accident that occurred. The primary dispute was whether the accused's actions constituted aggravated dangerous driving due to exceeding the speed limit by 45 km/h, despite his claim of an epileptic seizure at the time of the incident. The court was required to weigh the reliability of expert evidence and lay opinions regarding the speed of the accused's vehicle and the voluntariness of his actions following the seizure.

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.