Conway v R [2023] NSWCCA 40

Conway v R [2023] NSWCCA 40

The convictions were not unreasonable or unable to be supported. The Court was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the applicant was driving the Land Rover at the time of the collision. The countervailing evidence suggesting a second occupant or alternative driver had limitations and was overwhelmed by the circumstantial Crown case, including that the applicant was driving shortly before the collision, the continuity of dangerous driving, his proven lie about an alternative driver, his wiping down of the vehicle, evidence that only one person exited, and his admission that he left through the driver's doorway. The verdict on count four was also open, having regard to the trial judge's...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 March 2023
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Conviction / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction in the Court of Criminal Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal against conviction granted; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['appeal Against Conviction' 'unreasonable Verdict' 'judge Alone Trial' 'circumstantial Evidence' 'manslaughter' 'fatal Motor Vehicle Collision' 'taking and Driving a Conveyance Without Consent' 'failure to Stop and Assist After Vehicle Impact Occasioning Death']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure'] ['appeal Against Conviction' 'unreasonable Verdict' 'judge Alone Trial' 'circumstantial Evidence' 'manslaughter' 'fatal Motor Vehicle Collision' 'taking and Driving a Conveyance Without Consent' 'failure to Stop and Assist After Vehicle Impact Occasioning Death']

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 Against Conviction / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction in the Court of Criminal Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the convictions were unreasonable or unable to be supported by the evidence.' 'Whether the Crown proved beyond reasonable doubt that the applicant was the driver of the Land Rover at the time of the fatal collision.' 'Whether there was a reasonable alternative hypothesis that another person was the driver.' 'Whether the verdict of guilty on count four, taking and driving a conveyance without the consent of the owner, was unreasonable or unable to be supported.']

Ratio Decidendi

The convictions were not unreasonable or unable to be supported. The Court was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the applicant was driving the Land Rover at the time of the collision. The countervailing evidence suggesting a second occupant or alternative driver had limitations and was overwhelmed by the circumstantial Crown case, including that the applicant was driving shortly before the collision, the continuity of dangerous driving, his proven lie about an alternative driver, his wiping down of the vehicle, evidence that only one person exited, and his admission that he left through the driver's doorway. The verdict on count four was also open, having regard to the trial judge's...

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal against conviction granted; appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal against conviction granted.' 'Appeal dismissed.']