30 Nov 2023
The trial judge did not err; there was sufficient evidence to find beyond reasonable doubt that the cyclist's lights were on or, alternatively, that the intersection was sufficiently well lit such that a reasonable and prudent driver would have seen and given way to the cyclist, therefore the appellant's driving was careless and the appeal is dismissed.
29 Jun 2023
A miscarriage of justice occurred because the District Court judge identified the offending warranted a lesser charge, the prosecutor indicated willingness to amend, but the appellant was not afforded opportunity to withdraw his guilty plea or to consult and be heard; accordingly the High Court quashed the dangerous driving conviction and substituted a conviction for careless driving.
30 May 2023
Appeal allowed and conviction quashed because the trial judge failed to give reasons as required by s106(2) and counsel did not follow the appellant's instruction to apply for a discharge without conviction; the Crown accepted a miscarriage had occurred and no retrial was ordered as public interest did not require one.
3 Mar 2023
The High Court upheld the District Court: applicant failed to establish a real and appreciable risk that the identified employment and travel/migration consequences would occur and there was insufficient evidence that those consequences would be out of all proportion to the gravity of the offending; regulators are entitled to know convictions, and the District Court did not err in refusing a discharge without conviction, so the appeal is dismissed.
19 May 2022
Trial judge erred in convicting for aggravated careless driving because evidence did not establish deliberate breach of the road rule required for aggravation; however evidence supported conviction for careless driving under s38 LTA; appellate court substituted conviction for careless driving and quashed the unrelated alcohol and drug counselling condition of sentence.
29 Jun 2021
The court held the appellant's decision to drive was not objectively reasonable because he failed to adequately explore reasonable alternatives (taxi, rideshare, or attending a nearby medical centre), provided no evidence of delay, and offered no satisfactory explanation for his chosen route; accordingly there were no special reasons under s 81 to avoid mandatory disqualification and the District Court sentence was upheld.
12 Apr 2021
The 20-month disqualification was outside the established range for first-time offending of this type given comparative authorities and the offender's circumstances; the High Court substituted a 14-month disqualification on the driving-under-the-influence conviction while leaving the careless-use disqualification intact.
3 Dec 2020
The trial judge's findings that the victim was visible and that the appellant failed to take additional precautions at a compulsory stop given known lighting limitations were supported by evidence; no error of law or miscarriage of justice was shown on appeal; and the judge correctly applied the s107 proportionality test so the refusal to discharge without conviction was appropriate.
16 Sept 2020
The High Court held the trial Judge did not err: the independent eyewitness evidence was reliable, admissions by the appellant corroborated the careless nature of his driving, the mens rea for sustained loss of traction was not established so amendment to careless use was appropriate, and careless driving was proven beyond reasonable doubt; therefore the conviction was upheld and the appeal dismissed.
31 Jul 2020
The High Court held the evidence established beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant reversed into the complainant causing injury, that she heard/observed indications of an impact and a distressed person and therefore knew or ought to have known an accident occurred, and that no reasonable excuse for driving off was made out; accordingly the convictions were affirmed.