R v Wells - [2016] SADC 68

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v WELLS
Criminal Trial by Judge Alone
[2016] SADC 68
Reasons for the Verdict of Her Honour Judge Davison
30 June 2016
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - DRIVING OFFENCES - CULPABLE OR DANGEROUS DRIVING CAUSING DEATH OR BODILY HARM
Trial by Judge alone - accused charged with aggravated causing serious harm by dangerous driving - whether accused's driving voluntary - accused diagnosed post collision with complex partial seizures - accused had level of about 0.66mg/L of methylamphetamine at time of collision - whether veering off Sturt Highway at 110km/h is dangerous.
Verdict: Guilty.
Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 s 19AA, s 21; Evidence Act 1929 s 34, referred to.
Markou v R (2012) NSWCCA 64; R v W (2015) SASCFC 56; R v Radford (1985) 42 SASR 266; R v Falconer (1990) 171 CLR 30; R v Kroon (1991) 55 SASR 476; Ramsay v Watson (1961) 108 CLR 642; McBride v The Queen (1966) 115 CLR 44; R v Greenham (1997) 25 MVR 495, considered.

R v WELLS
[2016] SADC 68
Introduction

At about 3.00pm on Saturday 23 March 2013 a silver Holden Barina driven by Martin Wells (“the accused”), collided with the rear of a white Mitsubishi utility that was stationary on the gravel shoulder of the Sturt Highway near Shea-Oak Log. The driver of the white utility, AK, was at the time of the collision, at the rear, or close to the rear of his utility. He was struck and came to rest in the middle of the Sturt Highway. As a result of the collision he suffered significant injuries to his left forearm, right lower leg, left thigh, left lower leg, scalp, torso, left lung and right buttock.
The accused was charged with Aggravated Causing Harm by Dangerous Driving and Driving with Prescribed Drug in Oral Fluid or Blood.
First Count
Statement of Offence
Aggravated Causing Harm by Dangerous Driving. (Section 19A(3) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, 1935).
Particulars of Offence
Martin Wells on the 23^rd day of March 2013 at Shea-Oak Log, drove a motor vehicle in a culpably negligent manner, recklessly, or in a manner which was dangerous to the public and thereby caused serious harm to AK.
It is further alleged that Martin Wells committed the offence whilst driving a vehicle in contravention of section 47BA of the Road Traffic Act, 1961.
Second Count
Statement of Offence
Driving with Prescribed Drug in Oral Fluid or Blood. (Section 47BA(1) of the Road Traffic Act,1961).
Particulars of Offence
Martin Wells on the 23^rd day of March 2013 at Shea-Oak Log, drove a vehicle whilst having a prescribed drug present in his blood, namely methylamphetamine.
Upon arraignment, the accused pleaded guilty to Count 2, and not guilty to Count 1. I have heard the trial without a jury on Count 1.
There is no dispute that as the accused was driving his car from Nuriootpa to his mother’s house at Para…

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 Wells

Details

AGLC: R v Wells [2016] SADC 68
Case: [2016] SADC 68
Decision Date: 30 June 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Wells involved an accused charged with aggravated causing serious harm by dangerous driving. The incident occurred when the accused, after consuming methylamphetamine, drove at a high speed and veered off the Sturt Highway, resulting in serious harm to another road user. The accused was subsequently charged and the matter was heard by a judge alone in the relevant court.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the accused's driving was voluntary and whether the actions of the accused constituted dangerous driving. The defence argued that the accused's driving was not voluntary due to a diagnosed condition of complex partial seizures and the influence of methylamphetamine at the time of the collision. The prosecution maintained that the accused's actions were indeed dangerous and voluntary, warranting the charge of aggravated causing serious harm by dangerous driving.

The court considered the evidence presented and found that the accused's driving was voluntary despite the presence of complex partial seizures. The court held that the accused's consumption of methylamphetamine and the decision to drive at a high speed, coupled with the dangerous manoeuvre of veering off the highway, constituted dangerous driving. The court found that the accused's level of 0.66mg/L of methylamphetamine at the time of the collision further supported the charge. Consequently, the court found the accused guilty of the charge of aggravated causing serious harm by dangerous driving.

The final orders of the court included a determination of guilt and the imposition of a sentence that was to be determined in a subsequent proceeding. The court acknowledged the complexity of the case, particularly in balancing the accused's medical condition with the dangerous nature of the driving. The outcome underscored the serious consequences of dangerous driving, especially when combined with the influence of drugs.

Orders