R v Wells

Case [2016] NSWDC 169


District Court


New South Wales

  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: R v Wells [2016] NSWDC 169
Hearing dates:15 August 2016
Date of orders: 17 August 2016
Decision date: 17 August 2016
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Berman SC DCJ
Decision:

The accused is found guilty of the 2 back up charges on the s 166 certificate

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – Back up charges after acquittal at trial – Negligent driving occasioning death – Not give way when making a U-turn – Emergency vehicle – Negligence – Causation – Entering the overtaking lane of a freeway when car approaching – Failing to wait for approaching car to pass
Legislation Cited: Rural Fires Act
Criminal Procedure Act
Australian Road Rules
Cases Cited: Cameron v R unrep NSWCCA 27 Sep 1994
DPP v Yeo & Anor [2008] NSWCSC 953
Royall v The Queen (1990) 172 CLR 378)
Thabo-Meli v R [1954] 1 WLR 228
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: The Crown
Ian Jeffrey Wells
Representation:

Counsel:
R Cooley – The Crown
M Higgins – The Accused

  Solicitors:
Director of Public Prosecutions
Crown Solicitor’s Office - Accused
File Number(s):2013/44288

Judgment

Introduction

  1. In May this year I presided over a jury trial in which the accused, Ian Jeffrey Wells was charged with 2 offences. The first was an offence of dangerous driving occasioning the death of Mrs Katina Mihailidis and the second was an offence of dangerous driving occasioning grievous bodily harm to Mr Peter Mihailidis. The accused was acquitted on both counts.

  2. With the consent of Mr Wells, and pursuant to s 166 of the Criminal Procedure Act, I am now dealing with 2 back-up charges, an offence of negligent driving occasioning the death of Mrs Mihailidis and an offence of making a U turn without giving way to a vehicle.

  3. There is no back up charge relating to the grievous bodily harm suffered by Mr Mihailidis. That circumstance apparently arises from inappropriate advice given to those who laid the charges.

  4. The evidence which I will consider in determining the guilt or otherwise of Mr Wells on these 2 back up charges consists of the evidence given in the trial, both oral and documentary, supplemented by the tender in these proceedings of some further documents to which reference had been made in the earlier trial. There was also a statement of agreed facts tendered which has substantially reduced the issues for me to resolve.

Facts

  1. What follows is a non-controversial outline of the events which have led to the present proceedings.

  2. The accused was a volunteer rural fire-fighter with the Kariong Brigade of the Rural Fire Service (“the RFS”). One evening while at his home he was paged and, together with other RFS members, attended an incident at the Mount White weighbridge station on what was then called the F3 Freeway. Concentrated orange juice had been spilt. The accused travelled to the scene of the spillage in a RFS vehicle designated Kariong 1. That vehicle was a category 1 fire tanker which carried a…

Continue reading R v Wells

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Wells [2016] NSWDC 169
Case
[2016] NSWDC 169
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved a defendant, Wells, who was initially acquitted of charges related to negligent driving occasioning death but faced subsequent charges under section 166 of the relevant legislation. The dispute centred around whether the prosecution could validly bring these back-up charges after the acquittal, and whether the evidence supported the lesser charges. The matter was heard in a higher court, which had the authority to review the lower court's decision and the evidence presented.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the prosecution was entitled to bring forward additional charges after the initial acquittal, and whether the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction on the lesser charges of negligent driving. The court needed to consider the legal principles governing the introduction of back-up charges and the applicable standard of proof for the lesser charges. The court also needed to examine the facts of the case, specifically the circumstances of the accident, to determine if the defendant's actions constituted negligence.

The court held that the prosecution was indeed entitled to bring the back-up charges, as this is a recognised practice in criminal law to ensure that the accused is held accountable for any criminal conduct. The court then turned to the sufficiency of the evidence, finding that it was sufficient to establish that the defendant had negligently caused the death of the victim. The court concluded that the evidence demonstrated that the defendant failed to yield to an approaching car while making a U-turn and entered the overtaking lane of the freeway without waiting for the approaching car to pass, which were clear instances of negligent driving. The defendant's actions directly contributed to the fatal collision.

The court found the accused guilty of the two back-up charges based on the s 166 certificate. The accused is to be sentenced on these charges.

Orders

Orders of the court

The accused is found guilty of the 2 back up charges on the s 166 certificate

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.