R v Saunders [2002] NSWCCA 362
The jury was not properly and meaningfully instructed on the distinction between negligence and dangerous driving, and improper speculation about non-expert evidence was allowed, resulting in the conviction being unsafe.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 29 August 2002
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
- Outcome
- Appeals against convictions upheld; convictions and sentences quashed; new trial ordered.
- Legal Topics
- ['dangerous Driving' 'dangerous Driving Causing Death' 'dangerous Driving Causing Grievous Bodily Harm' 'distinction Between Negligence and Dangerous Driving' 'onus of Proof']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether the jury was adequately directed on the distinction between negligence and dangerous driving' 'Whether there was an error in not instructing the jury about the lack of an onus on the accused' 'Whether the jury was improperly left to speculate on the significance of the vehicle breaking in half without expert evidence']
Ratio Decidendi
The jury was not properly and meaningfully instructed on the distinction between negligence and dangerous driving, and improper speculation about non-expert evidence was allowed, resulting in the conviction being unsafe.
Court Disposition
Appeals against convictions upheld; convictions and sentences quashed; new trial ordered.
Orders
- ['Appeals against convictions upheld' 'Each conviction quashed' 'The sentences imposed quashed' 'A new trial be held']
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment