Jiminez v The Queen [1992] HCA 14

Jiminez v The Queen [1992] HCA 14

The conviction could not stand because the trial judge failed to direct the jury that any period during which the applicant was asleep involved involuntary conduct and could not itself amount to driving in a manner dangerous to the public, failed to identify the relevant prior period of driving alleged to be dangerous and its required contemporaneity with the fatal impact, and failed to instruct the jury on the issue of an honest and reasonable belief that it was safe to drive. Those defects caused a miscarriage of justice. In the circumstances, including the age of the matter, the non-compelling prosecution case, the sentence already imposed, and the fact that a retrial would permit the...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Conviction for Culpable Driving / Special Leave to Appeal and Appeal in the High Court of Australia From the Court of Criminal Appeal of New South Wales
Outcome
Special leave to appeal granted; appeal allowed; conviction quashed; verdict of acquittal entered; no retrial ordered.
Legal Topics
['culpable Driving' 'driving in a Manner Dangerous to the Public' 'falling Asleep at the Wheel' 'voluntariness' 'honest and Reasonable Mistake' 'jury Directions' 'miscarriage of Justice' 'retrial']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'traffic Law'] ['culpable Driving' 'driving in a Manner Dangerous to the Public' 'falling Asleep at the Wheel' 'voluntariness' 'honest and Reasonable Mistake' 'jury Directions' 'miscarriage of Justice' 'retrial']

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 for Culpable Driving / Special Leave to Appeal and Appeal in the High Court of Australia From the Court of Criminal Appeal of New South Wales

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the applicant's falling asleep while driving could constitute driving in a manner dangerous to the public for the purposes of s. 52A of the Crimes Act 1900 N.S.W." 'Whether the relevant dangerous driving had to be voluntary and sufficiently contemporaneous with the impact causing death.' 'Whether the jury should have been directed about involuntariness, the relevant period of driving, and honest and reasonable belief that it was safe to drive.' 'Whether a new trial should be ordered after the conviction was quashed.']

Ratio Decidendi

The conviction could not stand because the trial judge failed to direct the jury that any period during which the applicant was asleep involved involuntary conduct and could not itself amount to driving in a manner dangerous to the public, failed to identify the relevant prior period of driving alleged to be dangerous and its required contemporaneity with the fatal impact, and failed to instruct the jury on the issue of an honest and reasonable belief that it was safe to drive. Those defects caused a miscarriage of justice. In the circumstances, including the age of the matter, the non-compelling prosecution case, the sentence already imposed, and the fact that a retrial would permit the...

Court Disposition

Special leave to appeal granted; appeal allowed; conviction quashed; verdict of acquittal entered; no retrial ordered.

Orders

  • ['Special leave to appeal granted.' 'Appeal allowed.' 'Set aside the orders of the Court of Criminal Appeal of New South Wales.' 'In lieu thereof allow the appeal against conviction to that Court.' 'Quash the conviction.' 'Enter a verdict of acquittal.']