Citation: R v Adamczyk [2010] NSWDC 76
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 18 March 2010
Judge(s): Murrell SC DCJ
Background
The accused, a 57-year-old man, was charged with dangerous driving causing death following a fatal head-on collision on the Princes Highway near Conjola on 12 May 2008. He had been driving north from work when his vehicle veered erratically on multiple occasions before striking a guardrail and crossing into oncoming traffic. The driver of the other vehicle sustained multiple severe injuries and subsequently died.
Medical testing conducted after the accident revealed the accused suffered from severe obstructive sleep apnoea, a condition that had not previously been diagnosed. Expert evidence indicated the accident bore the hallmarks of a "fall asleep" crash, consistent with the accused experiencing micro sleeps during the journey.
The accused elected to be tried by judge alone. There was no dispute about the facts or the expert opinions. The central question was whether the Crown could prove the accused guilty of dangerous driving beyond reasonable doubt, given his ignorance of his medical condition.
Legal Issues
- Whether the accused's driving, in circumstances where he suffered from undiagnosed and untreated severe sleep apnoea, constituted driving in a manner dangerous to another person under the Crimes Act 1900
- Whether the defence of honest and reasonable mistake of fact applied, specifically whether the accused honestly and reasonably believed it was safe for him to drive
- Whether the Crown could negative (that is, disprove) that defence beyond reasonable doubt
Decision
The court accepted that all objective elements of the offence were established. The accused was driving; his vehicle was involved in an impact; that impact caused the deceased's death; and, as a matter of objective fact, driving with severe untreated sleep apnoea constituted a substantial and serious departure from acceptable driving standards. It was particularly dangerous for him to travel a significant distance at highway speed in that condition.
The critical issue turned on the defence of honest and reasonable mistake of fact, drawn from the High Court's analysis in Jiminez v The Queen (1992) 173 CLR 572. Under that principle, even where driving objectively constitutes a danger to the public, a driver who honestly and reasonably believed it was safe to drive cannot be convicted. The evidential burden of raising the excuse lies with the accused, but the prosecution must then disprove it beyond reasonable doubt.
The uncontradicted expert evidence was that the accused had no knowledge of his sleep apnoea diagnosis prior to the accident. Associate Professor Wheatley, the prosecution's own expert, concluded that the micro sleeps the accused likely experienced during the journey would not have alerted him to his condition, given the nature of micro sleeps. On that basis, the Crown Prosecutor conceded the Crown could not negative the honest and reasonable mistake defence.
The court agreed with that concession and returned a verdict of not guilty.
Orders Made
• The accused is found not guilty of the offence
Key Takeaways
- A conviction for dangerous driving causing death requires the Crown to prove all four elements beyond reasonable doubt: that the accused was driving; the vehicle was involved in an impact; the impact occasioned death; and the driving was objectively dangerous.
- Where a defendant raises honest and reasonable mistake of fact, the Crown bears the onus of negativing that defence beyond reasonable doubt, even where the dangerous quality of the driving is otherwise established as an objective matter.
- Undiagnosed sleep apnoea, combined with uncontradicted expert evidence that micro sleeps would not have alerted the driver to any risk, can support a finding that the driver honestly and reasonably believed it was safe to drive.
- The District Court applied Jiminez v The Queen to confirm that the relevant question in tiredness-based dangerous driving cases is not simply whether a warning sign of sleep onset existed, but whether the driver was objectively so impaired that driving constituted a danger and whether the driver could be taken to have known it.
- Sufficient evidence of honest and reasonable belief can be established through expert medical evidence, including evidence conceded by the prosecution's own witnesses.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Cases
- Jiminez v The Queen (1992) 173 CLR 572