Van Vugt v Wilson - [2020] WASC 85

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CRIMINAL

CITATION:   VAN VUGT -v- WILSON [2020] WASC 85
CORAM:   HALL J
HEARD:   3 SEPTEMBER 2019
DELIVERED          :   16 MARCH 2020
FILE NO/S:   SJA 1036 of 2019
BETWEEN:   MICHAEL WILLIAM VAN VUGT
Appellant
AND
SONIA WILSON
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :   MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram:   MAGISTRATE T WATT
File Number            :   JO 4956 of 2018, JO 4957 of 2018

Catchwords:

Criminal law – Appeal against conviction – Careless driving causing death – Careless driving causing grievous bodily harm – Whether appellant driving too close to car in front – Expert evidence as to safe following distance – Whether magistrate misapprehended the expert evidence – Whether verdicts unreasonable or cannot be supported having regard to the evidence

Legislation:

Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), s 8, s 30(3)
Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA), s 59BA(1)

Result:

Extension of time granted
Leave to appeal on grounds 1 and 2 granted
Leave to appeal on ground 3 refused
Appeal allowed
Convictions set aside
Matter remitted to the Magistrates Court for a retrial before a different magistrate

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant	:	Mr S Vandongen SC
Respondent	:	Mr T E Pontre

Solicitors:

Appellant	:	J D Hawkins
Respondent	:	State Solicitor's Office

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

Geneff v Townsend [1970] WAR 20
Illich v Garvey [2001] WASCA 236
Lait v Magden (1992) 16 MVR 72
Lumley v The Police [2007] WASC 189
Owaiti-Zadeh v Gill [2012] WASC 465
The State of Western Australia v Olive [2011] WASCA 25
Wells v The State of Western Australia [2017] WASCA 27

HALL J:

Summary

The appellant was convicted after trial in the Magistrates Court of one count of careless driving causing death and one count of careless driving causing grievous bodily harm, both contrary to s 59BA(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA). He was fined $8,000 on the first count and $2,500 on the second count and was disqualified from holding a drivers licence for a total period of 12 months. He seeks leave to appeal against his convictions.
The charges arose out of an accident that occurred on the Mitchell Freeway on the afternoon of 26 December 2017. The appellant was driving his vehicle in a northerly direction in the right-hand lane. His partner and their young child were in the rear seats. Ms Doreen Rees was also driving north in her vehicle in the same lane. She was alone in her car and some distance ahead of the appellant. There were two cars between the appellant's vehicle and that of Ms Rees. For reasons unknown Ms Rees slowed and stopped her car; the two vehicles immediately behind her moved into the centre lane and drove past. The appellant's vehicle collided with that of Ms Rees resulting in catastrophic injuries to her. Ms Rees died in hospital the following day. The appellant's partner suffered grievous bodily harm.
The only real issue was whether the appellant was driving without due care…

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 Van Vugt v Wilson

Details

AGLC: Van Vugt v Wilson [2020] WASC 85
Case: [2020] WASC 85
Decision Date: 16 MARCH 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Van Vugt v Wilson, the appellant, Van Vugt, appealed against his conviction for careless driving causing the death of one person and grievous bodily harm to another. The incident occurred when Van Vugt's vehicle collided with the back of another vehicle, driven by Wilson. The matter was heard by the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The primary issue before the court was whether the appellant was driving too close to the car in front at the time of the collision, and if the magistrate's interpretation of the expert evidence on the safe following distance was correct. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the verdicts were unreasonable or could not be supported given the evidence.

The court examined the evidence presented by the expert witness, who provided testimony on the safe following distance based on the speed and road conditions. The court found that the magistrate had correctly interpreted the expert evidence and applied it to the facts of the case. The court held that the evidence supported the conclusion that Van Vugt was indeed driving too close to the vehicle in front, and that this was a contributing factor to the collision. The verdicts were not unreasonable and were adequately supported by the evidence presented at trial. The appeal was, therefore, dismissed.

The court's reasoning was based on the principle that the magistrate, as the trier of fact, was entitled to assess the credibility and weight of the evidence, including expert testimony. The court found no error in the magistrate's interpretation or application of the expert evidence. Furthermore, the court held that the verdicts were not unreasonable and were supported by the evidence. The appellant's argument that the verdicts were unsafe and unsatisfactory was rejected. The court confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the magistrate.

Orders