R v Scott - [2003] VSCA 55

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No. 222 of 2001

THE QUEEN
	v.
DANIEL NICKOLAS SCOTT

---

JUDGES:	WINNEKE, P., PHILLIPS and BUCHANAN, JJ.A.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	24 March 2003
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	15 May 2003
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2003] VSCA 55

---

Criminal law – Culpable driving – Admissibility of evidence of previous driving – Principles guiding the admissibility of such evidence – No error detected in decision by judge to admit such evidence

Judge’s directions – Modification of standard directions in cases of culpable driving based on gross negligence – Whether judge in error in the circumstances of the instant case in failing to give directions approximate to those given in cases of involuntary manslaughter – Application of the principles referred to in R. v. De’Zilwa [2002] VSCA 158 discussed.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr. J.D. McArdle, Q.C.	K. Robertson, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Applicant	Mr. O.P. Holdenson, Q.C.	Kenyons

WINNEKE, P.:

The applicant – who is now aged 23 – was convicted in the County Court on 15 August 2001 of one count of culpable driving causing death and one count of negligently causing serious injury. On 24 August 2001 he was sentenced to six years’ imprisonment on count 1 (culpable driving) and two years’ imprisonment on count 2 (negligently causing serious injury). The judge ordered cumulation of one year of the sentence on count 2 upon the sentence imposed on count 1. Hence, the total effective sentence was seven years’ imprisonment; and his Honour directed the applicant to serve a minimum term of five years before becoming eligible for parole.

The applicant has applied for leave to appeal against the convictions and the sentences imposed.

The events giving rise to the convictions occurred on Sunday 11 October 1998 when the applicant was 19 years of age. He was, at the relevant time, the holder of a probationary licence. At about 11 a.m. on the morning of that day, the applicant was driving his vehicle in a westerly direction along the Eltham/Yarra Glen Road. As he came out of a left hand bend his vehicle, a white utility with a V8 engine, drifted onto its wrong side of the road near its intersection with Gills Road, and came into a glancing collision with a vehicle travelling in the opposite direction driven by one, Illios Dikeos. Dikeos was shaken and pulled up; but the applicant did not stop. Nor, it seems, did he moderate his driving. A motor cyclist, one Price, had seen the applicant’s utility come around the bend, almost “sideways”, saw it “glance off” Dikeos’ car, throwing off a shower of dust and glass; then straighten up and keep going. Some 1 to 2 kilometres further on, the applicant’s vehicle approached a right hand curve in the road at Watson’s Creek where visibility of on-coming traffic was to some extent obscured by the crest of the road. Opposing the applicant – and coming from the other direction…

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 Scott

Details

AGLC: R v Scott [2003] VSCA 55
Case: [2003] VSCA 55
Decision Date: 15 May 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Scott, the appellant was convicted of culpable driving causing death. The dispute arose over the admissibility of certain evidence regarding the appellant's previous driving conduct and the judge's directions to the jury regarding the appropriate legal standards to apply in the sentencing phase. The matter was heard in the Court of Appeal, with the appellant challenging the trial judge's decision to admit the evidence and the adequacy of the jury directions.

The legal issues before the Court of Appeal involved the principles governing the admissibility of prior bad acts evidence in criminal cases, particularly where the prior acts are similar to the offence charged, and the appropriate legal standards to be applied in culpable driving cases involving gross negligence. The appellant argued that the trial judge erred in admitting the evidence of prior driving incidents and in not modifying the standard directions to more closely align with those used in involuntary manslaughter cases.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's decision to admit the evidence of the appellant's prior driving incidents. The Court held that the evidence was relevant and probative of the appellant's state of mind and propensity to drive negligently. The Court also found that the judge's directions to the jury, while not identical to those given in involuntary manslaughter cases, were appropriate in the circumstances of the case. The Court emphasised that the directions must be tailored to the specific facts and circumstances of each case, and that the judge had not erred in the manner in which they were given.

No further orders were made by the Court of Appeal.

Orders