Richardson v The Queen - [2016] ACTCA 63

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
COURT OF APPEAL

Case Title:	Richardson v The Queen
Citation:	[2016] ACTCA 63
Hearing Date:	9 August 2016
DecisionDate:	22 November 2016
Before:	Burns, Elkaim and Ross JJ
Decision:	The appeals are dismissed.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – Particular Offences – offences against the person – culpable driving of motor vehicle – causing death – causing grievous bodily harm. CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal from Supreme Court – trial by jury – appeal against conviction – conviction unreasonable and not supported by the evidence – whether appellant’s intoxication was the substantial and operating cause – ample evidence to support conviction – appeal dismissed.
Legislation Cited:	Evidence Act 2011 (ACT) s 184 Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT) s 37O
Cases Cited:	Campbell v The Queen (1980) 2 A Crim R 157 Elwood v The Queen [2016] NSWCCA 18 Filippou v The Queen [2015] HCA 29; 256 CLR 47 Jones v Great Western Railway Co [1930] All ER Rep Ext 830 Leyland Shipping Co Ltd v Norwich Union Fire Insurance Society Ltd [1918-19] All ER Rep 443 (HL) Libke v The Queen [2007] HCA 30; 230 CLR 559 M v The Queen [1994] HCA 63; 181 CLR 487 Peacock v The King [1911] HCA 66; 13 CLR 619 Plomp v The Queen [1963] HCA 44; 110 CLR 234 at 252 Royall v The Queen [1991] HCA 27; 172 CLR 378 RP v The Queen [2015] NSWCCA 215; 90 NSWLR 234 TI v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 62 W v The Queen [2014] NSWCCA 110
Parties:	Jamie Richardson (Appellant) The Queen (Respondent)
Representation:	Counsel Mr J Pappas (Appellant) Mr J White SC (Respondent)
Solicitors Ben Aulich & Associates (Appellant) ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent)
File Number:	ACTCA 11 of 2016
Decision under appeal:	Court: ACT Supreme Court Before: Murrell CJ Date of Decision: 30 March 2016 Case Title: R v Richardson

THE COURT:

On 30 March 2016, the appellant was convicted, following trial by jury, of two offences arising out of a driving incident on 1 February 2014. He was convicted of both counts on the indictment dated 15 March 2016:

(a)that on 1 February 2014 at Canberra in the Australian Capital Territory [the appellant] caused the death of Glenn Paul Dunster by the culpable driving of a motor vehicle, that is, while under the influence of alcohol to such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control of the vehicle; and
(b)that on 1 February 2014 at Canberra in the Australian Capital Territory [the appellant] caused grievous bodily harm to Dannielle Michelle Benning by the culpable driving of a motor vehicle, that is, while under the influence of alcohol to such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control of the vehicle.

The appellant appealed from the conviction in relation to both counts on the sole ground that the verdicts of the jury in each case were unreasonable or cannot be supported having regard…

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 Richardson v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Richardson v The Queen [2016] ACTCA 63
Case: [2016] ACTCA 63
Decision Date: 22 November 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Richardson appealed his conviction for culpable driving causing death and grievous bodily harm. The appeal was heard by the Court of Criminal Appeal of New South Wales, with Justices Burns, Elkaim, and Ross presiding. The central dispute on appeal was whether the jury's verdict was unreasonable and unsupported by the evidence, specifically concerning the appellant's intoxication as the substantial and operating cause of the offences.

The Court was required to determine whether there was sufficient evidence before the jury to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant's culpable driving, including his intoxication, was the substantial and operating cause of the death and grievous bodily harm. This involved assessing the evidence presented at trial, including the appellant's level of intoxication and the circumstances of the driving.

The Court found that there was ample evidence to support the jury's conviction. The judges reasoned that the evidence, when viewed in its totality, demonstrated that the appellant's intoxication was a significant factor contributing to his dangerous driving and the resulting fatalities and injuries. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

The appeals are dismissed.

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.