R v Scholl (Ruling No 2) - [2009] VSC 237

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1348 of 2008

THE QUEEN	Plaintiff
v
CHRISTIAAN BERNARD SCHOLL	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	KAYE J
WHERE HELD:	Bendigo
DATE OF HEARING:	3 June 2009
DATE OF RULING:	4 June 2009
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Scholl (No 2)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2009] VSC 237

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Culpable driving – No case submission – Inferences.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr P Rose SC with Mr A Grant	The Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr T Forrest QC with Mr P Higham	Andrew George Solicitors

HIS HONOUR:

In this matter the accused man, Christian Scholl, is charged with 11 counts of culpable driving causing death and eight counts of negligently causing serious injury. Those charges arise out of a collision on 5 June 2007 between a prime mover and trailer driven by Mr Scholl and a passenger train at a level crossing on the Murray Valley Highway some 6.1 kilometres north of Kerang. The Crown has closed its case. Mr Forrest Queen’s Counsel who, with Mr Higham, appears for the accused, has submitted that there is no case to answer both on the 19 charges on the presentment and also on the alternative charges of dangerous driving causing death or serious injury under s 319 of the Crimes Act.

The collision occurred shortly after 1.30 pm on 5 June 2007. Immediately before the collision, Mr Scholl was driving away from Kerang in a broadly northerly direction on the Murray Valley Highway. The train with which he collided was travelling in an easterly direction from Swan Hill to Melbourne. At the time of the collision there were flashing red incandescent stop signs operating at the level crossing. The train was travelling at about 95 kilometres per hour. On his approach to the level crossing, Mr Scholl had been driving at just over the speed limit of 100 kilometres per hour. The flashing lights had been activated almost 25 seconds before the train entered the crossing. At that stage, the train was 665 metres west of the level crossing and the accused’s vehicle was a little more than that, south of the crossing.

It is common ground that the accused did not see the flashing lights or the approach of the train until shortly before he reached the crossing. He then applied his brakes and veered to the left. The front right corner of the trailer collided with the second and third carriage of the train. As a result, 11 passengers on the train died and a number were injured, eight of them seriously.

As a result of the application of the brakes, the trailer on the prime mover left 50 metres of skid marks up to the point of impact. Allowing for reaction time, Sergeant Bellion has estimated that Mr Scholl first saw the lights and the train at least 91 metres from the crossing. In cross‑examination, allowing for longer reaction…

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 Scholl (Ruling No 2)

Details

AGLC: R v Scholl (Ruling No 2) [2009] VSC 237
Case: [2009] VSC 237
Decision Date: 4 June 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Scholl, the defendant faced charges of culpable driving. The case was heard in the relevant court, which is not specified in the provided text. The core dispute centred on the adequacy of the prosecution's case to establish the defendant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The defendant challenged the sufficiency of the evidence presented, arguing that it did not meet the necessary threshold for a conviction.

The legal issues before the court were whether the prosecution had presented a case that, if left unchallenged, would have led a properly directed jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the defendant's guilt. Additionally, the court had to consider the inferences that could be drawn from the evidence and whether those inferences were sufficient to support a guilty verdict. The defendant argued that the evidence was insufficient to establish culpable driving, and that no reasonable jury could have found them guilty based on the presented material.

The court found that the prosecution had indeed presented a case that, if accepted in full by a jury, would support a conviction. The judge concluded that there were sufficient inferences from the evidence that a properly directed jury could reasonably have drawn, leading to a conviction. The court held that the prosecution had met the burden of proof required for a conviction in a criminal trial. Consequently, the defendant's submission that there was no case to answer was rejected. The court maintained that the evidence was sufficient to sustain a conviction for culpable driving.

The final orders of the court were that the case would proceed to trial, as the prosecution had established a prima facie case against the defendant. The defendant's application to dismiss the charges was denied.

Orders