R v Wolter (No 2) - [2015] ACTSC 277

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Wolter (No 2)
Citation:	[2015] ACTSC 277
Hearing Date:	4 September 2015
DecisionDate:	4 September 2015
Before:	Refshauge J
Decision:	A direction will be given to the jury in accordance with the terms of s 29 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), with appropriate elaboration as to the meaning of "gross".
Category:	Principal Judgment
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – Jurisdiction, practice and procedure – trial – culpable driving causing death – jury direction – negligence – gross negligence – criminal negligence – equivalence to manslaughter – statutory alternative – negligent driving causing death – plea of guilty to a lesser charge – potential source of confusion for the jury – direction in accordance with the terms of the legislation
Legislation Cited:	Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Act 1988 (Cth), s 34(4) Crimes (Penalties) Amendment Act 2011 (ACT) Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), ss 15, 29, 29(7), 52A, 54 Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), 52A Crimes Act 1900 of the State of New South Wales in this application for the Australian Capital Territory, s 54 Crimes Act 1958 (Vic), ss 308, 318, 318(2)(b), 319 Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Act 1999 (ACT), s 6
Cases Cited:	Andrews v DPP [1937] AC 576 King v the Queen (2012) 245 CLR 588 MR (2000) 116 A Crim R 23 Nydam v The Queen [1977] VR 430 Patel v The Queen (2012) 247 CLR 531 R v Antoniazzo [2010] ACTSC 36 R v Bateman (1925) 19 Cr App R 8 R v D [1984] 3 NSWLR 29 R v De'Zilwa (2002) 5 VR 408 R v Doherty (1887) 16 Cox CC 306 R v Horvath [1972] VR 533 R v Leskinen (1978) 23 ACTR 1 R v Lucas [1973] VR 693 R v Mitchell (2005) 44 MVR 567 R v Shields [1981] VR 717 R v Stephenson [1976] VR 376 Re Lamperd v Courts Martial Appeal Tribunal (1983) 46 ALR 371
Texts Cited:	The Laws of Australia (Thomson Reuters, Sydney, Update 286) v.10, Subtitle 10.9 “Motor Vehicle Offences” 301; [10.9.560]
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Dylan Wolter (Accused)
Representation:	Counsel Mr T Hickey (Crown) Mr J Sabharwal (Accused)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Legal Aid ACT (Accused)
File Numbers:	SCC 177 of 2014; SCC 178 of 2014

Refshauge J:

On 16 August 2013, a collision occurred on Mawson Drive, Mawson, in the ACT, between a car being driven by the accused, Dylan Wolter, and a pedestrian, Natalie Ashley. Mrs Ashley died as a result of the collision. Mr Wolter was charged with, among other offences, culpable driving causing death by driving negligently.

In a practice I have endeavoured, not always successfully, to follow in recent times, I gave to the parties, in draft, the directions I proposed to give to the jury, not for editorial comment but so that substantive submissions could be made to me about any errors of omissions or commission counsel considered I had made in the directions of law…

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 Wolter (No 2)

Details

AGLC: R v Wolter (No 2) [2015] ACTSC 277
Case: [2015] ACTSC 277
Decision Date: 4 September 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Wolter (No 2) involved the accused, Wolter, and the prosecution. The dispute centred around the issue of culpable driving causing death and the directions given to the jury regarding the various legal standards of negligence that could be applied in such cases. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory.

The primary legal issue the court had to address was whether the trial judge had correctly directed the jury regarding the different standards of negligence that could be applied to the charge of culpable driving causing death. Specifically, the court needed to determine if the trial judge had adequately explained the concepts of negligence, gross negligence, and criminal negligence, and whether these terms were equivalent to manslaughter and the statutory alternative of negligent driving causing death. Furthermore, the court had to consider whether a plea of guilty to a lesser charge could potentially confuse the jury in understanding these distinctions.

The court concluded that the trial judge's direction to the jury was insufficient and had the potential to cause confusion. The court held that the trial judge should have given a direction to the jury in accordance with the terms of section 29 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), with an appropriate elaboration on the meaning of "gross". This would ensure that the jury understood the distinctions between the various levels of negligence and their equivalence to manslaughter and the statutory alternative.

The court ordered that a direction be given to the jury in accordance with the terms of section 29 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), with appropriate elaboration as to the meaning of "gross". This direction was intended to clarify the various standards of negligence that could be applied in cases of culpable driving causing death and to prevent potential confusion for the jury.

Orders

Orders of the court

A direction will be given to the jury in accordance with the terms of s 29 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), with appropriate elaboration as to the meaning of "gross".

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.