R v Wells

The applicant, who had a history of methylamphetamine use, sought leave to appeal against a guilty verdict for a driving offence causing death or bodily harm. The central dispute revolved around the cause of the applicant's vehicle veering off the road and colliding with a guard rail. The applicant contended that he may have suffered from a Complex Partial Seizure (CPS) shortly before the collision, which would render his driving involuntary. The prosecution argued that the collision was caused by the applicant's methylamphetamine consumption. The appeal was heard by the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia.

The legal issues before the court included whether the trial judge erred in rejecting the applicant's defence of involuntary driving due to CPS. Specifically, the court considered whether the judge was entitled to disregard the opinion of Dr. Marantos, who suggested CPS as a possible cause, based on the applicant's dishonesty regarding his drug use, the lack of diagnostic tests for CPS, and Dr. Marantos' limited understanding of methylamphetamine's effects. The court also had to determine if the judge erred in dismissing other grounds of appeal relating to the assessment of evidence concerning the applicant's observations, the diagnosis of CPS, and the applicant's account of events. Ultimately, the court had to decide if the verdict of guilty was unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence.

The Full Court reasoned that the trial judge was entitled to weigh all the evidence holistically. The judge found that the applicant had consumed a significant quantity of methylamphetamine, and accepted expert evidence that such use could lead to a loss of concentration and veering off the road. While the judge did not definitively rule out CPS as a cause, it was considered a "bare possibility" given the applicant's misleading statements to Dr. Marantos about his drug use and recollection of events, and Dr. Marantos' lack of expertise in the effects of methylamphetamine. The judge also accepted evidence that the applicant was conscious when his vehicle was veering, and his account to Ms. Robertson did not mention a loss of consciousness. Therefore, the court concluded that it was open to the judge to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the collision was not caused by a CPS.

The Full Court granted permission to appeal but dismissed the appeal. The court found that the grounds of appeal were not established and that the verdict was reasonable and capable of being supported by the evidence.