R v Franks [2020] NSWDC 531

R v Franks [2020] NSWDC 531

The accused made out the statutory defence under Crimes Act 1900 s 52A(8) because, on the balance of probabilities, he did not see the unlit motorcycle before the collision and there was no causal connection between Billy Holmes' death and the accused's intoxication. The shared expert evidence was that, with low beam headlights in the actual dark, rainy, dipped-road conditions, the approaching unlit motorcycle would not have been visible to the accused in sufficient time to avoid impact, and the Court rejected the Crown's submission that he was obliged to drive with high beam headlights in a built up area or stop completely before turning.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 August 2020
Procedural Posture
Criminal Prosecution for Driving Offences Under Crimes Act 1900 S 52 a / Judge Alone Trial; Verdict After Not Guilty Pleas
Outcome
The accused was found not guilty on all counts.
Legal Topics
['judge Alone Trial' 'dangerous Driving Occasioning Death' 'driving Under the Influence of Intoxicating Liquor' 'prescribed Concentration of Alcohol' 'statutory Defence Under Crimes Act 1900 S 52 A(8)' 'causation']
['criminal Law'] ['judge Alone Trial' 'dangerous Driving Occasioning Death' 'driving Under the Influence of Intoxicating Liquor' 'prescribed Concentration of Alcohol' 'statutory Defence Under Crimes Act 1900 S 52 A(8)' 'causation']

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

Criminal Prosecution for Driving Offences Under Crimes Act 1900 S 52 a / Judge Alone Trial; Verdict After Not Guilty Pleas

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the accused proved on the balance of probabilities that the death occasioned by the impact was not in any way attributable to the fact that he was under the influence of intoxicating liquor under Crimes Act 1900 s 52A(8).' 'Whether the accused saw, or could have seen, the unlit motorcycle before commencing his turn into his driveway.' 'Whether the accused was required to use high beam headlights or come to a complete stop before turning in the circumstances.']

Ratio Decidendi

The accused made out the statutory defence under Crimes Act 1900 s 52A(8) because, on the balance of probabilities, he did not see the unlit motorcycle before the collision and there was no causal connection between Billy Holmes' death and the accused's intoxication. The shared expert evidence was that, with low beam headlights in the actual dark, rainy, dipped-road conditions, the approaching unlit motorcycle would not have been visible to the accused in sufficient time to avoid impact, and the Court rejected the Crown's submission that he was obliged to drive with high beam headlights in a built up area or stop completely before turning.

Court Disposition

The accused was found not guilty on all counts.

Orders

  • ['Verdicts of not guilty entered on both charges.' 'A verdict of acquittal will be entered in the records.']