AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
1
District Court 27 March 2026

R v Sabra

[2026] NSWDC 70

Traffic & driving
YEAR

Citation: R v Sabra [2026] NSWDC 70
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 27 March 2026
Judge(s): Newlinds SC DCJ

Background

An accused driver was charged with dangerous driving causing death and, as a backup charge referred from the Local Court, negligent driving causing death, following a fatal collision at the intersection of Fifth Avenue and Eighth Avenue, Campsie. The deceased, an 83-year-old woman, had been walking westward along the footpath on Eighth Avenue toward the intersection. The accused was driving southward along Fifth Avenue, a straight road on a clear, sunny day, when his vehicle struck her.

A jury acquitted the accused of the dangerous driving charge after a four-day trial. The matter then came before the same judge, sitting as a magistrate under s 168 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), to determine the backup charge of negligent driving causing death on the same evidence.

The Crown particularised the negligence as a failure to keep a proper lookout for pedestrians near the intersection. The central factual dispute was whether the deceased had already crossed the 5.4-metre width of Fifth Avenue to the median strip and then turned back, or whether she was still in the process of crossing the road at the moment of impact. There was no direct evidence on this point.

Legal Issues

  • Whether the Crown proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused drove negligently, particularised as failing to keep a proper lookout, under s 117 of the Roads and Transport Act 2013 (NSW)
  • Whether the inference that the deceased was still crossing the road at the time of impact was the only rational inference available from the primary facts
  • Whether the accused's consistent account that the deceased came from his right-hand side (the direction of the median strip) was credible and consistent with the physical evidence
  • Whether, if the deceased had reached the median strip before the collision, any failure to keep a better lookout could have made a difference to the outcome

Decision

Issue 1: The essential inferential finding

The Crown's entire case rested on an inferential finding that the deceased was still crossing Fifth Avenue and had not yet reached the median strip at the time of impact. The court identified this as not merely a link in the chain of reasoning toward negligence but the single essential finding on which guilt depended (at [34]-[35]). Because the charge was criminal, the Crown was required to prove that inference beyond reasonable doubt, meaning it had to be the only rational inference available from the proved circumstances (at [30]).

Issue 2: Whether the Crown's inference was the only one available

The court found that a competing inference was reasonably open: that the deceased had crossed the 5.4 metres to the median strip in either of the two gaps between southbound vehicles (10 seconds and 14 seconds respectively), and then returned toward the accused's lane (at [55]). The court noted that a person walking slowly can cover considerable ground in 10 seconds and further still in 14. The court also observed that the relevant distance may have been materially less than 5.4 metres because a traffic island structure near the kerb could have provided a natural stopping point closer to the median strip (at [52]-[53]). Because a competing inference was reasonably open, the Crown failed to discharge its onus and the accused was entitled to an acquittal (at [58]).

Issue 3: The accused's account and the physical evidence

The accused consistently stated, across both his immediate roadside interview and the later electronically recorded police interview, that the deceased came suddenly from his right-hand side. The court found no reason to reject that account (at [57]). Importantly, the vehicle damage and the injuries to the deceased's left side were themselves consistent with her approaching from the right, meaning from the direction of the median strip (at [57]). The court accepted that account in the context of all the evidence, not in isolation.

Issue 4: Causation and the alternative case

The court noted that the Crown ran no alternative case based on the accused failing to see the deceased while she was on the median strip. The court briefly addressed that possibility and found two answers: it would not have amounted to a negligent failure to keep a proper lookout in the circumstances, and in any event, if the deceased stepped out directly in front of the vehicle from the right-hand side, no improvement in the accused's lookout could have made any difference to the outcome (at [61]).

Orders Made

  • The accused is not guilty of negligent driving occasioning death pursuant to s 117(1)(a) of the Road Transport Act 2013 (NSW).

Key Takeaways

  • A conviction for negligent driving causing death under s 117 of the Roads and Transport Act 2013 (NSW) requires proof that the accused departed from the standard of care of an ordinary prudent driver and that the negligent driving was a substantial or significant cause of death. It need not be the only cause, but it must be more than a trivial one (at [47]).

  • Where the Crown's case depends entirely on an inferential finding of fact, that inference must be the only rational one available. If a competing inference is reasonably open on the evidence, the Crown has not discharged its burden and an acquittal follows (at [30], [37], [58]).

  • The District Court found it reasonably open, applying common sense and life experience rather than forensic calculation, that an elderly pedestrian could have crossed 5.4 metres to a median strip in either a 10-second or 14-second gap in traffic (at [55]).

  • The absence of forensic evidence on a key factual question, in this case the deceased's walking speed and the time needed to cross the relevant distance, can undermine the Crown's ability to prove the essential inferential finding beyond reasonable doubt (at [53]).

  • An accused's consistent account across multiple recorded statements, where that account is also consistent with the physical damage and injury evidence, may be accepted and, where accepted, can be wholly destructive of the Crown's case (at [57]).

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) s 52A(1)(c)
- Criminal Procedure Act 1986 ( NSW) s 133; s 168
- Roads and Transport Act 2013 (NSW) s 117

Cases
- Derrick v Cheung [2001] HCA 48; (2001) 181 ALR 301
- DPP (NSW) v Yeo (2008) 51 MVR 157
- Hawthorne v Hillcoat [2008] NSWCA 340
- R v Fong [2020] NSWDC 214
- Royall v The Queen (1991) 172 CLR 378
- Swan v The Queen [2020] HCA 11