Citation: [2025] NSWDC 582
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 9 December 2025
Judge(s): Bourke SC DCJ
Background
The offender, a 31-year-old civil engineer, pleaded guilty to one count of dangerous driving occasioning death and two counts of dangerous driving occasioning grievous bodily harm. On 12 July 2023, while driving his Mitsubishi Pajero, the offender experienced an epileptic seizure, lost control of the vehicle, accelerated to high speed, and collided with several vehicles. A passenger in a Holden Commodore was killed, and the driver and another passenger of that vehicle sustained grievous injuries.
The offender had a long history of epilepsy dating from approximately 2010, including full tonic-clonic seizures. He underwent a successful left temporal lobectomy in 2013, was certified fit to drive in June 2014, and was seizure-free for years. However, in the two to three years before the crash, seizure activity returned. His treating neurologist, Dr Reyneke, prescribed anti-seizure medication (Tegretol) and monitored his condition.
Critically, in the weeks and months before the crash, several of the offender's work colleagues witnessed him experiencing serious seizure events at the office. These involved unresponsiveness, arm banging, drooling, turning blue, and periods of disorientation. Despite these events, the offender consistently downplayed the episodes to colleagues, declined medical attention at the time, and, in a consultation with Dr Reyneke just six days before the crash, did not disclose the full extent of his recent seizure activity.
Legal Issues
- What was the appropriate sentence for dangerous driving occasioning death under s 52A(1)(c) of the Crimes Act 1900 and for two counts of dangerous driving occasioning grievous bodily harm under s 52A(3)(c)?
- What discount should apply for the offender's guilty pleas, entered after committal for trial?
- What was the offender's degree of moral culpability, given that the crash was caused by an epileptic seizure rather than deliberate recklessness, but the offender had failed to disclose significant seizure activity to his treating neurologist and continued to drive?
- What weight should be given to the offender's subjective circumstances, including his medical history, rehabilitation prospects, and remorse?
Decision
The court found the offender's driving was "dangerous" within the meaning of the legislation because, at the time of the crash, his capacity to control the vehicle was impaired due to the effects of epilepsy. The dangerousness was not based on the manner of driving at the moment of the collision, but rather on the offender's decision to continue driving despite knowing his seizures had returned and were escalating in severity. The court placed significant weight on the fact that the offender had not disclosed the full picture of his seizure activity to Dr Reyneke at his consultation on 6 July 2023, just six days before the fatal crash.
The offender's moral culpability was assessed in light of the nature of epilepsy. The court accepted that the offender had genuinely, though misguidedly, minimised the seriousness of his seizures, both to his colleagues and apparently to his neurologist. Nevertheless, the court found that the offender knew, or ought to have known, that his seizure activity posed a real risk when driving, particularly given the witnessed episodes at work involving loss of awareness, involuntary movements, and turning blue.
The court applied a 10% discount for the utilitarian value of the guilty pleas, which were entered after committal for trial. The offender's subjective features, including his otherwise good character, employment history, and expressions of remorse, were taken into account. The court also considered the devastating impact on the victims' families, as reflected in victim impact statements.
The court's sentencing remarks referenced the maximum penalties as important guideposts: 10 years' imprisonment for the death offence and 7 years for each grievous bodily harm offence. The precise sentences imposed are contained in the full judgment (the provided text was truncated before the sentencing orders were delivered).
Orders Made
- The offender was convicted of one count of dangerous driving occasioning death (s 52A(1)(c) Crimes Act 1900) and two counts of dangerous driving occasioning grievous bodily harm (s 52A(3)(c) Crimes Act 1900).
- A 10% discount was applied for the guilty pleas.
- The specific terms of imprisonment and any non-parole periods are set out in the full judgment (the text provided was truncated before the formal orders).
Key Takeaways
- Dangerous driving occasioning death can be established where the driver's capacity to control a vehicle was impaired by a medical condition such as epilepsy, even where the crash itself resulted from a seizure rather than a deliberate act of dangerous driving.
- The District Court found that the offender's moral culpability was significantly elevated by his failure to disclose the true extent and severity of recent seizure activity to his treating neurologist, combined with his continued decision to drive despite escalating symptoms witnessed by multiple colleagues.
- A 10% discount for the utilitarian value of guilty pleas was held to be appropriate where the pleas were entered after committal for trial.
- An offender's subjective minimisation of a known medical condition does not negate the dangerousness of driving in those circumstances, though it may be relevant to the assessment of moral culpability.
- Under s 52A of the Crimes Act 1900, the maximum penalties (10 years for occasioning death, 7 years for grievous bodily harm) were treated as important guideposts in the sentencing exercise.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation:
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 52A(1)(c), s 52A(3)(c)
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Cases cited:
- Gillett v R [2006] NSWCCA 370
- R v Fennell (No 2) [2019] NSWDC 652
- R v Harris [2015] NSWCCA 81
- R v Musumeci NSWCCA 30 October 1997
- R v Whyte (2002) 55 NSWLR 252