Court Report on Careless/Reckless Driving Case

This court report provides a detailed account of a case involving careless/reckless driving. It includes information about the background, hearing date, verdict, and more.

1
LEGISLATION, COURTS AND POLICING
COURT REPORT
Student’s Name
Course
Professor’s Name
University
Date

2
Case Title Careless/Reckless Driving
Court No 350th Judicial District
Hearing Date 24th February 2019
Case No C-00-06097-CPV
Judge/Magistrate Sheffield Cochran
Time 10;40 AM
Plaintiff’s Attorney Gridiron Stun
Respondent Attorney Hailee Anderson
Plaintiff Barbra Wilson
Respondent William Johnson
Background
I was lucky to witness the trial in a court hearing as a member of the general public in
the magistrate court. The case I observed was on hearing. It involved careless driving,
whereby the respondent was accused of knocking the plaintiff due to reckless driving. As a
result, the magistrate disqualified the driving licence until there was a verdict to the case, all
of which was agreed upon except the allegations about the use of mobile phones. The act was
against the NSW Motor Accidents Injuries Act 2009 c.50 s.24, s.29 (3) as well as Bail Act
2008 s.4 (7) (Loughnan, 2009). The case was heard by a jury, who were acting together with
the magistrate. After extensive discussion with the court clerk and advice from the jury, the
final verdict was that the defendant was guilty and had a case to answer due to because of
careless driving and is thus he was disqualified from his driving licence for a period of 12
months, with accordance to Road Safety Act 2008 s.47 and until he qualifies his driving test

3
after he served the 12 month prohibition period. This coincided with a penalty of $ 7500 in
court fees and compensation to the petitioner.
Date of Hearing
The date of the hearing was set on 24th February 2019. When selecting the date
hearing the court considered all the applications of the adjudication time frame in accordance
with section § 405.1016 of Bail Act 2008 s.4 (7).The hearing was scheduled for the case to be
heard , and a decision to be issued within the applicable adjudication time frame. In addition,
the magistrate was able to account for the 20-day notice requirement when he was scheduling
the hearing and required the notice of the hearing be mailed at least within a period of 20
calendar days before the day that was scheduled for the hearing (Wales, 2017). If the
notification for the hearing date is sent, this requirement is only applicable to the date that the
notice was sent to the parties, and not in the date it was received by the recipients.
Particulars of the case (Court Matter)
On or about 15th November 2018 , the plaintiff was a lawful pedestrian along the 44th
Street, Queensland County close to the push bar area when the respondent carelessly and
recklessly drove and as a result he lost control ,veered off the road and knocked the plaintiff,
causing serious injuries. During the first date of the hearing, a medical report was provided
by Mr. William where he reported that the plaintiff sustained the following injuries:
1. The fracturing of the left tibia and the right fibula
2. A cut wound in the left arm, and
3. Blunt object injury in the left cheek.
The case was for the first hearing where the claimant’s PW forms was presented in
the hearing process and later cross-examined by both his lawyer and the magistrate. On the

4
defence side, the Witness was his father Mr. Chad Wilson. There was two significant
personnel, who were aiding the operations of Magistrate Sheffield Cochran: the court clerk
and the usher. The court clerk acted as a consultant to the jury which comprised of four lay
persons from the general public. Even though they didn’t have prior experience in legal
matters, they received minor legal training before the commencement of the hearing process.
The court clerk has substantial legal knowledge and expertise to allow them to
provide the magistrate with proper advice (Mackie, 2018).The role of the ushers in the court
was to ensure that the persons that were taking part in the process were in the designated
places at the designated time. Regardless of these requirements, the day of the hearing was a
little disorganised.
Once the bench had been trained and sworn in, the magistrate reminded them of their
obligations, which was to discuss and weigh of the evidence in order to determine whether
they were strong facts for the case. The role of the magistrate was primarily to interpret the
law and direct the bench accordingly (Murphy, et al., 2010). Even though I didn’t see the
magistrate interpret the law, I was able to see her interactions with the jury, and the police
prosecutor, whereby she would confirm whether the members of the bench understood what
they were doing and reiterate by providing the most appropriate suggestions for the witness
accounts. Even though the terms and facts of the case were relatively simple and could be
understood easily, the magistrate’s reiteration appeared to be helpful for the members of the
bench, especially for those found it challenging to follow the trial.
The disadvantage of the bench services was that it could be longwinded and tedious,
which probably explain why it is unpopular. Most members had to take more time out of their
normal schedule in order to attend the hearing process (Zweig, 2010).The long training
process and the jury trials often resulted to a good number losing the interest of participating

5
in the case which subsequently affected the arrangements of the hearing and the decision at
the end of the trail (Scott-Parker, et al., 2019).
The defendant didn’t attend the hearing physically: However, m he provided his
lawyer with specific instruction and authority to act on his behalf. During the hearing, there
would always be two attorneys present in person, each representing one of the parties. In this
case, it involved crown prosecution service and the, .defendant. However, since the case was
conducted in a magistrate court, the CPS is not always available in person (Leal, Watson, &
Armstrong, 2010).
The unpunctuality of the defendant, made him appear not understand the weight and
facts of the trial. This could undeniably have an impact on the thoughts about him and
consequently might have even played a huge role in the decisions that were made by the
magistrate at the end of the trial (Hamack, 2014). Moreover, this might be a sign of serial
offender who might have gone through this process multiple times. Such issues often appear
to be an ineffective use of the judicial process (Son, Park, & Lee, 2015).
Verdict
The hearing of the case between William v Barbra , was based on violation of traffic
rules or Road Traffic Act 1988 s (4) which indicates , ‘If an individual is driving a vehicle
without the necessary care and consideration , or without reasonable care for other people
using the road ,he is liable for his offences.’
In terms of the proceeding, the trial took about 2 hours to be completed. During this
time the magistrate provided the opening statement which outlines the case. In response, the
defence team agreed to all the facts outlined in the hearing, except the accusation that Mr.
William Johnson was using his mobile phone at the time of the accident. The plaintiff

6
accused Mr. Jonson of using his handset, and as a result, he lost his concentration and
knocked him causing serious injuries.
The hearing resulted in a plea hearing, a 12-month disqualification of the defendant’s
driving licence and the provision that Mr. Johnson should enrol in another driving test and
pass it before his suspension is lifted. He also received a fine of $ 7,500 reduced from $ 9500
because of the guilty plea, where the amount was payable within a period of 14 days since the
day of the hearing (Stubbs, 2010).
In regards to these proceeding, there were a number of procedural failures. For
instance, there was an executive error at the start of the hearing which leads to a delay of
about one hour prior to the start of the hearing process. Moreover, there was a lot of
confusion concerning the timing of the case, and the whereabouts of the key witnesses as well
as the defendant. This demonstrated that there was a lack of proper organisation on the part of
the court, thus reflecting the long state of exercising fairness. Such mistakes often occur if
there is no coordination between the usher and the clerk (Lucidi, et al., 2010). However,
when the case commenced it was smooth and direct as the issues were dealt with in a way
suitable of the court of law, and the magistrate felt that the verdict necessary for the case was
within the authority and powers of the court.
Based on the Diceys ’Rule of Law’, it is evident that the magistrate and the court
made an appropriate verdict in his final verdict, and this was granted with the guilty plea. The
actions of the defendant had been seen by other pedestrians, who in there statements
indicated that the defendant’s standards of driving were below that of a careful and assertive
driver. Moreover, the police provided further evidence in an appropriate and ’disinterested’
manner. Thus the consideration of the guilty plea, and a strong evidence for the case, the
court did not have any choice but to make the sentence. Moreover, for policy reasons, and

7
because of the huge publicity behind driving offence in the mainstream media, judges and
magistrates have been put under huge pressure to enforce stringent policies concerning road
traffic offences .This could be a huge contributor to the huge decrease in the cases of traffic
accidents since the year 2003. Consequently, it is reasonable to presume that, if this offence
was dedicated some few years ago, the offender could have received a much lenient
judgement from the court (McGrath, 2009).
Adversaries could also be used in this case as they would have provides the
magistrate and other parties great deal of control over the ways fact are being gathered
and presented. Mr. Wilson and Barbra would have the opportunity to gather their own
evidence in the form of experts and witness opinion , and later present their evidence to
the court in a manner they feel most favourable to them. However, there are strength and
weaknesses to this approach. Some of the strength include ; Both parties would be
empowered to discover the truth of the case , by acting out of self-interest to provide the
best evidence to win . Another strength is that each party would be in control of their
own case , thus providing them with access to the core legal systems. Some of the
Weaknesses include: Any evidence that is considered unfavourable would be eliminated ,
and this might sometime lead to concealment of truth . Moreover High cost of the
process would discourage the parties from pursuing the desired legal path as the case
might turn to who can spend more and employ some of the skilled lawyer: the adversary
system being concerned with winning than the search for the truth

8

9
Bibliography
Mackie, T. (2018). Proving liability for highly and fully automated vehicle accidents in
Australia. Computer Law & Security Review, 34(6), 1314-1332.
McGrath, A. (2009). Offenders' perceptions of the sentencing process: a study of deterrence
and stigmatisation in the New South Wales Children's Court. Australian & New Zealand
Journal of Criminology, 42(1), 24-46.
Murphy, P., McGuinness, A., Balmaks, A., McDermott, T., & Corriea, M. (2010). A strategic
review of the New South Wales juvenile justice system. Canberra: Noetic Solutions Pty Ltd.
Hamack, B. (2014). Go Directly to Jail, Do Not Pass Juvenile Court, Do Not Collect Due
Process: Why Waiving Juveniles into Adult Court Without a Fitness Hearing is a Denial of
their Basic Due Process Rights. Wyo. L. Rev., 14, 775.
Leal, N., Watson, B., & Armstrong, K. (2010). Risky driving or risky drivers? Exploring
driving and crash histories of illegal street racing offenders. Transportation Research
Record, 2182(1), 16-23.
Loughnan, A. (2009). The Legislation We Had to Have?: The Crimes (Criminal
Organisations Control) Act 2009 (NSW). Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 20(3), 457-465.
Lucidi, F., Giannini, A. M., Sgalla, R., Mallia, L., Devoto, A., & Reichmann, S. (2010).
Young novice driver subtypes: relationship to driving violations, errors and lapses. Accident
Analysis & Prevention, 42(6), 1689-1696.
Stubbs, J. (2010). Re-examining bail and remand for young people in NSW. Australian &
New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 43(3), 485-505.
Son, J. W., Park, S. W., & Lee, T. Y. (2015). U.S. Patent No. 9,208,683. Washington, DC:
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

10
Scott-Parker, B., Stokes, L., Gardner, S., Cawkwell, M., Wilson, M., Panoho, S., & Klump,
S. (2019). Working together to develop interventions for young drivers, pre-crash, pre-
offence, and pre-licence: A pilot multi-agency collaboration. Transportation research part F:
traffic psychology and behaviour, 60, 632-642.
Wales, N. S. (2017). Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2011 No 27. Assessment,
(60), 42.
Zweig, J. (2010). Extraordinary Conditions of Release Under the Bail Reform Act. Harv. J.
on Legis., 47, 555.