Legal Research
Cases
R v Wylie

R v Wylie

Case [2020] NSWDC 550 6 April 2020

Criminal Liability

Aggravated & Exemplary Damages

Causation

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Wylie [2020] NSWDC 550
Hearing dates: 30 – 31 March, 1, 3 April 2020
Decision date: 06 April 2020
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Beckett DCJ
Decision:
See paragraph 72

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW – aggravated dangerous driving occasioning death - interpretation of ss 52A(5)(c), (d) 52A(6) and 52A(7) of the Crimes Act 1900 – circumstance of aggravation – speed – “the impact of the vehicle with an object” – “is occasioned through” – “object”

Legislation Cited:
Crimes (Amendment) Bill 1955 (NSW)
Crimes (Dangerous Driving Offences) Amendment Bill 1994 (NSW)
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) s 52A
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), ss 130A, 139(3)(g)
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 192A
Motor Traffic Act 1909 (NSW)
Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA), s 59

Cases Cited:
A2 v R; KM v R; Vaziri v R [2015] NSWCCA 244
Alcan (NT) Alumina Pty Limited v Commissioner of Territory Revenue (NT) (2009) 239 CLR 27
Attorney-General v Bindoff (1953) 53 SR (NSW) 489
Commissioner for Railways (NSW) v Agalianos (1955) 92 CLR 390
Electrolux Home Products Pty Ltd v Australian Workers' Union [2004] HCA 40
Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Consolidated Media Holdings Ltd (2012) 250 CLR 503
Harlor v The Queen (1956) 95 CLR 170
Jiminez v The Queen (1992) 173 CLR 572
KH v R [2014] NSWCCA 294
King v Coventry (1938) 59 CLR 633
Lacey v Attorney General (Qld) (2011) 242 CLR 573 Lee v New South Wales Crime Commission (2013) 251 CLR 196
Magorian v Lodge [2011] WASC 147
McBride v The Queen (1966) 115 CLR 44
Potter v Minahan (1908) 7 CLR 277
Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355
R v Adamson [2005] NSWCCA 7
R v Hain (1966) 85 WN (Pt 1) 7
R v Piper [2005] NSWCCA 134
R v TR (2004) 180 FLR 424
Regina v Buttsworth [1983] 1 NSWLR 653
SZTAL v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2017) 91 ALRJ 936
Thiess v Collector of Customs (2014) 250 CLR 644
Williams v R [2012] NSWCCA 286

Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Crown
Jason James Wylie
Representation:
Counsel:
Ms K Marinos (for the Crown)
Mr R Rajalingam (for the accused)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for the Director of Public Prosecutions Legal Aid

File Number(s): 2018/207714
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

The accused, Jason James Wylie, appeared before the Parramatta District Court for trial on 30 March 2020. By agreement of the parties the trial is to be heard by judge alone. The accused was arraigned on an indictment containing two counts as follows:

That he, on 5 July 2018 at Strathfield in the State of New South Wales did drive a vehicle, namely, a Holden Commodore sedan, New South Wales registration number JJW XXX when it was involved in an impact occasioning the death of Harold Chatfield and at the time of the impact the said Jason James Wylie was driving the vehicle at a speed dangerous to another person or persons in…

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 Wylie

Details

AGLC: R v Wylie [2020] NSWDC 550
Case: [2020] NSWDC 550
Decision Date: 06 April 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Wylie was convicted of aggravated dangerous driving occasioning death, contrary to ss 52A(5)(c) and (d) of the Crimes Act 1900, for driving at excessive speed, resulting in the death of the victim. The Supreme Court of New South Wales heard Wylie's appeal against the conviction, focusing on the interpretation of certain sections of the Act in light of the circumstances of the incident. The court considered whether the speed of the vehicle, the impact with an object, and the causation of the death were correctly applied under the relevant statutory provisions.

The central legal issues revolved around the interpretation of ss 52A(5)(c), (d), 52A(6) and 52A(7) of the Crimes Act 1900. Wylie argued that the court had misinterpreted the statutory provisions concerning the circumstances of aggravation, particularly regarding the speed of the vehicle, the impact with an object, and the causation of death. The court needed to determine if the trial judge had erred in his interpretation of these sections, and whether the evidence sufficiently established the elements of the offence.

In evaluating the appeal, the court scrutinised the trial judge's interpretation of the statutory language. It considered whether the speed of the vehicle at the time of the impact was correctly identified as a circumstance of aggravation, and whether the impact with an object was properly characterised under the statute. The court also examined if the causation element was correctly established, ensuring the death was indeed occasioned through the driving. Ultimately, the court concluded that the trial judge's interpretation was consistent with the statutory language and the evidence presented. The appeal was dismissed, and Wylie's conviction was upheld.

The final orders of the court included a dismissal of the appeal and the affirmation of Wylie's conviction for aggravated dangerous driving occasioning death. The court held that the trial judge's interpretation of the relevant sections of the Crimes Act 1900 was correct, and the evidence was sufficient to establish the elements of the offence.

Orders

Orders of the court

See paragraph 72

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.

Citations

AGLC Citation

R v Wylie [2020] NSWDC 550

Most Recent Citation

Wenbiao Lin v The Queen [2018] VSCA 100

Cases citing this decision · 2 of 2 shown

Lin v The Queen
[2018] VSCA 100 Para 1

…burglaries in one night, stealing an item from one of the premises, and leaving it behind at another, the entire body of evidence is admissible. See R v Wylie (1804) 127 ER 393; R v O’Meally (No 2) [1953] VLR 30.…
The Medical Board of South Australia v Christopher Dean Heinrich No. SCGRG 96/428 Judgment No. 5899 Number of Pages 14 Professions and Trades
[1996] SASC 5899

…sufficient seriousness to vitiate the orders made by the tribunal and I agree with the learned judge appealed from that they should be set aside. (cf The Queen v Wylie (1976) 15 SASR 232).…

View all 2 citing cases →

Cases cited in this decision · 22 of 22 shown

A2 v R; KM v R; Vaziri v R
[2015] NSWCCA 244 Para 11

…cularly if new issues arise during the course of proceedings as was recognised in KH v R [2014] NSWCCA 294 at [24]; and in A2 v R; KM v R; Vaziri v R [2015] NSWCCA 244, the latter concerning the application for a preliminary ruling as to the statutory construction of the term ‘mutilates’ for the purposes of s 45 of…
KH v R
[2014] NSWCCA 294 Para 11

…with the parties, preliminary rulings can be revisited, particularly if new issues arise during the course of proceedings as was recognised in KH v R [2014] NSWCCA 294 at [24]; and in A2 v R; KM v R; Vaziri v R [2015] NSWCCA 244, the latter concerning the application for a preliminary ruling as to the statutory cons…
Thiess v Collector of Customs
[2014] HCA 12 Para 54

…es the general purpose and policy of a provision, in particular the mischief it is seeking to remedy”: see also Thiess v Collector of Customs (2014) 250 CLR 644 at [22]; Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Consolidated Media Holdings Ltd (2012) 250 CLR 503. In Lacey v Attorney General (Qld) (2011) 242 CLR 573 at [44]…
Lee v New South Wales Crime Commission
[2013] HCA 39 Para 56

…made clear by Electrolux Home Products Pty Ltd v Australian Workers' Union (2004) CLR 309 at [19] and Lee v New South Wales Crime Commission (2013) 251 CLR 196 at [313] – [314].…
Williams v R
[2012] NSWCCA 286 Para 68

…The closest consideration to the issues that arise is by the Court of Criminal Appeal in Williams v R [2012] NSWCCA 286, concerning a person driving a vehicle “out of control”. The Court determined the driver is nonetheless still taken to be driving the vehicle even whilst the car was out of control: per Basten JA a…
Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Consolidated Media Holdings Ltd
[2012] HCA 55 Para 54

…olicy of a provision, in particular the mischief it is seeking to remedy”: see also Thiess v Collector of Customs (2014) 250 CLR 644 at [22]; Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Consolidated Media Holdings Ltd (2012) 250 CLR 503. In Lacey v Attorney General (Qld) (2011) 242 CLR 573 at [44] the majority emphasised that the “purpose of a statute is not something which exist…
Magorian v Lodge
[2011] WASC 147 Para 51

…llate court that I am aware of. It appears that Western Australia has relevantly identical legislation to the S52A NSW provision. In Magorian v Lodge [2011] WASC 147 the Supreme Court considered the relevantly identical provision, s 59 of the Road Traffic Act 1974 , commenting that the provision was designed to “e…
Lacey v Attorney-General (Qld)
[2011] HCA 10 Para 54

…v Collector of Customs (2014) 250 CLR 644 at [22]; Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Consolidated Media Holdings Ltd (2012) 250 CLR 503. In Lacey v Attorney General (Qld) (2011) 242 CLR 573 at [44] the majority emphasised that the “purpose of a statute is not something which exists outside the statute. It resides in its text and stru…
Alcan (NT) Alumina Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Territory Revenue
[2009] HCA 41 Para 54

…In Alcan (NT) Alumina Pty Limited v Commissioner of Territory Revenue (NT) (2009) 239 CLR 27 at [47], the majority emphasised that the “language which has actually been employed in the text of legislation is the surest guide to legislative intention”, but that the “meaning of the text may require consideration of th…
R v Piper
[2005] NSWCCA 134 Para 10

…estions of law anticipated to arise from the evidence, such applications have been recognised as allowable: R v Adamson [2005] NSWCCA 7 and R v Piper [2005] NSWCCA 134. I noted during argument that a similar power exists in respect of rulings on questions on law that might arise, pursuant to s 139(3)(g) of the Crimi…
R v Adamson
[2005] NSWCCA 7 Para 10

…ry determination of certain questions of law anticipated to arise from the evidence, such applications have been recognised as allowable: R v Adamson [2005] NSWCCA 7 and R v Piper [2005] NSWCCA 134. I noted during argument that a similar power exists in respect of rulings on questions on law that might arise, purs…
Electrolux Home Products Pty Ltd v Australian Workers' Union
[2004] HCA 40

…Commissioner for Railways (NSW) v Agalianos (1955) 92 CLR 390 Electrolux Home Products Pty Ltd v Australian Workers' Union [2004] HCA 40 Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Consolidated Media Holdings Ltd (2012) 250 CLR 503 Harlor v The Queen (1956) 95 CLR 170 Jiminez v The Queen (1992) 173 CLR 572 KH v R [2014]…
R v TR
[2004] NSWCCA 187 Para 12

…eration as to the prospects of obtaining a conviction and to counsel for the accused in offering sensible advice as to the appropriate plea: R v TR (2004) 180 FLR 424.…
Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority
[1998] HCA 53 Para 53

…ory construction are well- established. As was said by McHugh, Gummow, Kirby and Hayne JJ in Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355 at [69], the “primary object of statutory construction is to construe the relevant provision so that it is consistent with the language and purpose o…
Jiminez v the Queen
[1992] HCA 14 Para 24

…erous driving “so nearly contemporaneous with the impact as to satisfy the ‘time of impact’ requirement”: per Jiminez v The Queen (1992) 173 CLR 572 (“ Jiminez ”) at 578. On this basis the Crown position is that the evidence allows for the aggravating factor of speed to be made out in respect of s 52A(7) based upon t…
McBride v the Queen
[1966] HCA 22 Para 38

…In 1966, McBride v The Queen (1966) 115 CLR 44 the High Court considered the prosecution arising from a collision of a truck driven by the accused that impacted with a woman and child as they crossed a pedestrian crossing. He had been driving on the correct side of the road at a relatively low speed behind a motor c…
Harlor v The Queen
[1956] HCA 50 Para 36

…In 1956 the High Court of Australia in Harlor v The Queen (1956) 95 CLR 170 a driver of a double decker bus across the Iron Cove Bridge in Sydney was indicted for manslaughter but convicted under the then s52A(1) in respect of the death of a passenger travelling on the upper deck of the bus when the bus hit one of t…
Commissioner for Railways (NSW) v Agalianos
[1955] HCA 27 Para 53

…nguage of the instrument as a whole”. Their Honours also referred to the statement of Dixon CJ in Commissioner for Railways (NSW) v Agalianos (1955) 92 CLR 390 at 397 that “the context, the general purpose and policy of a provision and its consistency and fairness are surer guides to its meaning than the logic with…
R v Coventry
[1938] HCA 31

…LR 503 Harlor v The Queen (1956) 95 CLR 170 Jiminez v The Queen (1992) 173 CLR 572 KH v R [2014] NSWCCA 294 King v Coventry (1938) 59 CLR 633 Lacey v Attorney General (Qld) (2011) 242 CLR 573 Lee v New South Wales Crime Commission (2013) 251 CLR 196 Magorian v Lodge [2011] WASC 147 McBride v The Queen (1966) 115 CLR…
Potter v Minahan
[1908] HCA 63 Para 56

…The accused places reliance on the “principle of legality” to stated, per Potter v Minahan (1908) 7 CLR 277 at 304 that it is improbable that “the legislature would overthrow fundamental principles, infringe rights, or depart from the general system of law without expressing its intention with irresistible clearnes…
Lacey v Attorney-General of Queensland
[2011] HCA 107 Para 54

…250 CLR 644 at [22]; Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Consolidated Media Holdings Ltd (2012) 250 CLR 503. In Lacey v Attorney General (Qld) (2011) 242 CLR 573 at [44] the majority emphasised that the “purpose of a statute is not something which exists outside the statute. It resides in its text and structure, albei…
Attorney-General v Bindoff
73 WN 398 Para 33

…ngerously was incorporated within the Motor Traffic Act 1909 which adopted the language of the UK Motor Car Act 1903 . As was recognised by Owen J in Attorney-General v Bindoff (1953) 53 SR (NSW) 489 at 490, the purpose for the introduction of the provision was to overcome the reluctance of juries to convict drivers for murder, man…

Legislation cited in this decision · 5

Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW)
130A, 139(3)(g) 3 mentions (from Para 10)
Crimes Act 1900 (ACT)
52A 2 mentions (from Para 8)
Evidence Act 1995 (Cth)
192A 2 mentions (from Para 1)
Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA)
59 2 mentions (from Para 51)
Motor Traffic Act 1909 (NSW)
1 mention (from Para 33)

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Wylie [2020] NSWDC 550
Hearing dates:	30 – 31 March, 1, 3 April 2020
Decision date:	06 April 2020
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Beckett DCJ
Decision:	See paragraph 72
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – aggravated dangerous driving occasioning death - interpretation of ss 52A(5)(c), (d) 52A(6) and 52A(7) of the Crimes Act 1900 – circumstance of aggravation – speed – “the impact of the vehicle with an object” – “is occasioned through” – “object”
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Amendment) Bill 1955 (NSW) Crimes (Dangerous Driving Offences) Amendment Bill 1994 (NSW) Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) s 52A Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), ss 130A, 139(3)(g) Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 192A Motor Traffic Act 1909 (NSW) Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA), s 59
Cases Cited:	A2 v R; KM v R; Vaziri v R [2015] NSWCCA 244 Alcan (NT) Alumina Pty Limited v Commissioner of Territory Revenue (NT) (2009) 239 CLR 27 Attorney-General v Bindoff (1953) 53 SR (NSW) 489 Commissioner for Railways (NSW) v Agalianos (1955) 92 CLR 390 Electrolux Home Products Pty Ltd v Australian Workers' Union [2004] HCA 40 Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Consolidated Media Holdings Ltd (2012) 250 CLR 503 Harlor v The Queen (1956) 95 CLR 170 Jiminez v The Queen (1992) 173 CLR 572 KH v R [2014] NSWCCA 294 King v Coventry (1938) 59 CLR 633 Lacey v Attorney General (Qld) (2011) 242 CLR 573 Lee v New South Wales Crime Commission (2013) 251 CLR 196 Magorian v Lodge [2011] WASC 147 McBride v The Queen (1966) 115 CLR 44 Potter v Minahan (1908) 7 CLR 277 Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355 R v Adamson [2005] NSWCCA 7 R v Hain (1966) 85 WN (Pt 1) 7 R v Piper [2005] NSWCCA 134 R v TR (2004) 180 FLR 424 Regina v Buttsworth [1983] 1 NSWLR 653 SZTAL v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2017) 91 ALRJ 936 Thiess v Collector of Customs (2014) 250 CLR 644 Williams v R [2012] NSWCCA 286
Category:	Procedural and other rulings
Parties:	Crown Jason James Wylie
Representation:	Counsel: Ms K Marinos (for the Crown) Mr R Rajalingam (for the accused) Solicitors: Solicitor for the Director of Public Prosecutions Legal Aid
File Number(s):	2018/207714
Publication restriction:	Nil