Haynes v R [2024] NSWCCA 12

Haynes v R [2024] NSWCCA 12

It was open to the trial judge to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the applicant engaged in dangerous driving occasioning death and bodily harm, as all reasonable hypotheses consistent with innocence were excluded, including the possibility of a pulmonary embolism; the applicant had sufficient warning of a potential loss of consciousness due to his history of vasovagal syncope associated with abdominal pain, making his conduct objectively dangerous.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 February 2024
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
['dangerous Driving Occasioning Death' 'dangerous Driving Occasioning Grievous Bodily Harm' 'misconduct Whilst in Charge of a Vehicle Causing Bodily Harm' 'unreasonable Verdicts' 'medical Evidence and Loss of Consciousness' 'judge Alone Trial']
['criminal Law' 'traffic Offences'] ['dangerous Driving Occasioning Death' 'dangerous Driving Occasioning Grievous Bodily Harm' 'misconduct Whilst in Charge of a Vehicle Causing Bodily Harm' 'unreasonable Verdicts' 'medical Evidence and Loss of Consciousness' 'judge Alone Trial']

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 Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the trial judge's verdicts were unreasonable" 'Whether it was open to the tribunal of fact to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the applicant engaged in dangerous driving' 'Whether the Crown excluded reasonable hypotheses consistent with innocence']

Ratio Decidendi

It was open to the trial judge to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the applicant engaged in dangerous driving occasioning death and bodily harm, as all reasonable hypotheses consistent with innocence were excluded, including the possibility of a pulmonary embolism; the applicant had sufficient warning of a potential loss of consciousness due to his history of vasovagal syncope associated with abdominal pain, making his conduct objectively dangerous.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed

Orders

  • ['Grant leave to appeal' 'Appeal dismissed']