R v Ross GILLETT [2005] NSWDC 20

R v Ross GILLETT [2005] NSWDC 20

The Crown did not prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was free of seizure or that he was acting voluntarily when his car struck the Howies' car; the court accepted that he was then suffering a complex partial seizure and that his movements were automatic rather than consciously chosen. However, the Crown proved beyond reasonable doubt that shortly before the seizure the accused was voluntarily driving in a manner dangerous to other persons because his epilepsy and seizure history created a real, substantial and significant risk of injury or death to other road users, and that this voluntary driving was in a practical sense the cause of the fatal impact. The court was also...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 November 2004
Procedural Posture
District Court Criminal; Judge Alone Trial on Three Counts of Dangerous Driving Causing Death / Judgment and Verdict After Trial
Outcome
The accused was found guilty on each of the three counts.
Legal Topics
['dangerous Driving Causing Death' 'voluntariness' 'automatism' 'epilepsy' 'complex Partial Seizure' 'judge Alone Trial' 'not Guilty on the Grounds of Mental Illness']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'traffic Offences'] ['dangerous Driving Causing Death' 'voluntariness' 'automatism' 'epilepsy' 'complex Partial Seizure' 'judge Alone Trial' 'not Guilty on the Grounds of Mental Illness']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

District Court Criminal; Judge Alone Trial on Three Counts of Dangerous Driving Causing Death / Judgment and Verdict After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Crown proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had no fit or seizure affecting consciousness while driving immediately before the fatal collision.' "Whether, even if the accused suffered a complex partial seizure, he was nevertheless driving voluntarily immediately before colliding with the Howies' car." 'Whether, before the seizure while acting voluntarily, the accused drove in a manner dangerous to other persons because of the risk he would suffer a seizure and be unable to control the car.' 'Whether the accused believed on reasonable grounds that it was safe for him to drive.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Crown did not prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was free of seizure or that he was acting voluntarily when his car struck the Howies' car; the court accepted that he was then suffering a complex partial seizure and that his movements were automatic rather than consciously chosen. However, the Crown proved beyond reasonable doubt that shortly before the seizure the accused was voluntarily driving in a manner dangerous to other persons because his epilepsy and seizure history created a real, substantial and significant risk of injury or death to other road users, and that this voluntary driving was in a practical sense the cause of the fatal impact. The court was also...

Court Disposition

The accused was found guilty on each of the three counts.

Orders

  • ['I find the accused guilty on each of the three counts']