R v Willgoose - [2024] SADC 158

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v WILLGOOSE
Criminal Trial by Judge Alone
[2024] SADC 158
Reasons for the Verdicts of his Honour Judge Alexandrides
5 December 2024
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - DRIVING OFFENCES - CULPABLE OR DANGEROUS DRIVING CAUSING DEATH OR BODILY HARM
The accused in this matter is charged with one count of aggravated cause death by dangerous driving (Count 1) and one count of leaving an accident scene after causing death by careless driving (Count 2). The offence of aggravated careless driving is charged as a statutory alternative to Count 1.
The accused elected for a trial by judge alone. Expert opinion adduced from both prosecution and defence on collision dynamics during the course of the trial. Expert evidence adduced by prosecution to establish the blood alcohol concentration of the accused and the impairment of driving capacity while intoxicated.
Held: Count 1: Guilty
Count 2: Guilty
Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) s 19A, S19AB; Road Traffic Act 1961 (SA) s 43, s 45, referred to.
Bliss v R (1983) 173 LSJS 255; McBride v The Queen (1966) 115 CLR 44; Pfeiffer v R (Unreported) SACCA No 680 of 1990; R v Greenham 25 MVR 495; Stoekel v Harpas (1971) 1 SASR 172; Walton v Rowbottom (Unreported) SASC No 2591 of 1986, discussed.

R v WILLGOOSE
[2024] SADC 158
Case Summary
Prosecution Case
Defence Case
The Charges
Elements of the Offence
Aggravated Causing Death by Dangerous Driving (s 19A(1) Criminal Law Consolidation Act)
Count 1 Alternative - Aggravated Driving Without Due Care or Attention Thereby Causing the Death of a Person (s 45(1) & (3)(a) Road Traffic Act)
Leaving an Accident Scene after Causing Death by Careless Driving (s 19AB(1) Criminal Law Consolidation Act)
Legal Directions
Evidence at Trial
The scene of the collision
Brevet Sergeant Anna Gallamore
Photographs
Observations of witnesses at the scene of the collision
Evidence of observations of lighting conditions
Evidence of observations of weather conditions
Evidence of observations of road conditions
Evidence of what was heard
Evidence of what occurred
Assessment of witnesses at the scene of the collision

Collision reconstruction evidence
Elliott McDonald – damage to the Kia
Reconstruction conducted by Sergeant Mark Fulcher
Examination of the scene
Collision dynamics
Visibility and conspicuity
Driver hazard detection
Perception response time
Gap acceptance
Cross-examination
Cued and non-cued scenarios
The IDRR Study

Intoxication and its effects
Pre-collision alcohol consumption by the accused
CCTV and financial Records
Charlie Louise Gunn-Marwick

Professor Jason White
The effects of alcohol generally
Cross-examination
Re-examination

Agreed Facts
Defence Witnesses
Lauren Jean Willgoose
Background, use of alcohol and mental health
Day of the collision
Weather
At the hotel
Alcohol tolerance that night
Driving home
How the accused realised she had hit a pedestrian
Cross-examination
Uncertainty about how much wine she drank after arriving home
After returning home
Description of what she saw and heard during the collision
Damage to her car
Why she did not stop to investigate the bang
Thoughts about the damage to the…

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 Willgoose

Details

AGLC: R v Willgoose [2024] SADC 158
Case: [2024] SADC 158
Decision Date: 5 December 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia was called upon to adjudicate in the case of R v Willgoose. The respondent, Willgoose, was charged with culpable or dangerous driving causing death or bodily harm, following a road accident that resulted in the death of a pedestrian. The dispute centred on the interpretation and application of the relevant statutory provisions and the principles of criminal liability. The case raised significant questions regarding the standard of care expected from drivers and the sufficiency of evidence to establish the requisite level of culpability.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the prosecution had established that Willgoose's driving was both culpable and dangerous, and if so, whether it directly caused the death of the pedestrian. The court needed to examine the definitions of 'culpable driving' and 'dangerous driving' under the relevant statutes, and determine if the evidence presented was sufficient to prove the necessary elements of the offence beyond reasonable doubt. Additionally, the court was tasked with assessing whether the trial judge had properly directed the jury on the applicable legal standards and whether there had been any errors in the application of the law that might have affected the outcome of the trial.

In delivering the judgment, the court began by analysing the statutory definitions and relevant case law to establish the benchmarks for 'culpable' and 'dangerous' driving. The court held that 'culpable driving' requires a marked departure from the standard of care expected of a competent and careful driver, while 'dangerous driving' involves creating an obvious risk of death or serious injury. The court found that the evidence presented was adequate to establish that Willgoose's driving met these criteria. It was concluded that the trial judge had correctly instructed the jury and that there were no errors in law that would warrant a new trial. Consequently, the court upheld the conviction, affirming that the prosecution had successfully proven the elements of the offence.

The court's final orders confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the lower court, with Willgoose remaining liable for the offence of culpable or dangerous driving causing death. The decision underscored the importance of adhering to the highest standards of care while driving and reinforced the legal standards required to establish culpability in such cases.

Orders