The accused is not guilty of the single count in the indictment dated 20 November 2017 (culpable driving causing grievous bodily harm).
Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Trial – Trial by judge alone – Circumstantial Case – verdict – accused found not guilty of culpable driving causing grievous bodily harm
This is a judge-alone trial conducted pursuant to s 68B of the Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT) after Chi Jun Tang (the accused) signed an election to be tried by judge alone on 9 February 2018.
The accused is charged with a single offence on an indictment dated 20 November 2017, being that on 17 December 2016 at Canberra, he caused grievous bodily harm to Luke Keir by the culpable driving of a motor vehicle, that is, by driving negligently, contrary to s 29(4) of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) (Crimes Act).
The accused was arraigned on 24 October 2018, and pleaded not guilty to the offence.
Pursuant to s 49 of the Crimes Act, the prosecution relied on a statutory alternative to the single count, namely negligent driving causing grievous bodily harm, contrary to s 6(1) of the Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management Act) 1999 (ACT).
Directions
Section 68C(2) of the Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT) requires that the judgment in…
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 Tang
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Tang [2019] ACTSC 4
Case
[2019] ACTSC 4
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Tang was charged with a single count of culpable driving causing grievous bodily harm. Tang elected for a trial by judge alone before his Honour Judge Williams at the Brisbane District Court. The prosecution case alleged that Tang was driving a vehicle that collided with a pedestrian, causing grievous bodily harm. The defendant denied the charge, claiming that the pedestrian stepped into the path of the vehicle. The court was required to determine whether the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that Tang was driving the vehicle in a dangerous manner and that this was the cause of the grievous bodily harm to the pedestrian.
The court considered the evidence presented, which included the testimonies of witnesses, the defendant, and expert evidence. The court examined the circumstances of the accident, the credibility of the witnesses, and the defendant's version of events. The court found that there were significant inconsistencies in the prosecution's evidence and that the defendant's version of events was supported by the evidence. The court concluded that the prosecution had not proved beyond reasonable doubt that Tang was driving the vehicle in a dangerous manner and that this was the cause of the grievous bodily harm to the pedestrian.
As a result, the court found Tang not guilty of the charge of culpable driving causing grievous bodily harm. The court's reasoning was based on the lack of credible evidence to support the prosecution's case, and the defendant's version of events was supported by the evidence. The accused was acquitted of the charge and was discharged from the court.
Orders
Orders of the court
The accused is not guilty of the single count in the indictment dated 20 November 2017 (culpable driving causing grievous bodily harm).