Legal Case Analysis: Culpable Homicide of Ken Daon for SBM Legal

This case study analyzes the case of Ken Daon, a truck driver facing charges of culpable homicide not amounting to murder following a fatal motor vehicle accident. The analysis, prepared for SBM Legal, examines the evidence presented, including eyewitness accounts, skid marks, and Daon's prior driving record. Key issues include the admissibility of a child's testimony, the potential use of Daon's prior convictions, and the challenges to evidence presented by the police. The study recommends a thorough evaluation of evidence, challenging eyewitness accounts, and emphasizing the victim's medical condition to build a defense strategy. The document highlights the complexities of the case, the strengths and weaknesses of the prosecution and defense, and the potential outcomes for Daon.

Our Ref: Ken Daon 18/SBM/SC/ 25th September 2018
Director: Steve Shaw
Contact: Dulith Sangakkara
Email: [e-mail]
To: Director, SBM Legal.
From: Dulith Sangakkara 32993083
Subject: Ken Daon – Culpable Homicide not amounting to Murder
INTRODUCTION
Our Client Ken Daon, a truck driver who was involved in a motor vehicle accident dated 23rd
October 2015 which resulted in the death of Mellisa Orr. Mellisa was a long-distance truck
driver who was at the time of the incident driving between the stretch from Perth to Albany.
Her truck collided with Ken’s truck 35 km south of Williams on the Albany Highway. The
other truck was driven by Ken Daon and it pulled up from Arthur River by loading large
consignment of wheat. The police were initially unable to obtain a statement from Ken as he
was too distraught following the accident. However, when the police came to obtain his
version of the events that transpired on that fateful day, his legal counsel prevented him from
divulging too much information. Being a representative of SBM Legal we have been
requested to act on behalf of Ken Daon who might be facing charges of involuntary
manslaughter.
Executive Summary
From the case scenario given before us, it is clearly evident that Ken Daon is going to be
charged with involuntary manslaughter as evidences are strongly stacked up against him. The
prosecution on their part are going for trial by developing the trial theory that Ken was
driving too fast at the time the accident took place. He made the mistake of not realising the
road conditions ahead and was not driving in a manner that would have enabled him to react
in a justifiable manner to a reasonably foreseeable incident. This prevented Ken from seeing
the truck (driven by Mellisa) which was coming from the blind hill out of Arthur River and
this eventually resulted in a direct collision between their trucks. This eventually resulted in
the death of the other truck driver leaving Ken partially shocked but without any serious
physical injuries.
Going through the eye-witness accounts regarding the case, there is strong reason to believe
that Ken was mainly responsible for the accident that took place on Albany Highway. A local
farmer who was driving up behind Mellisa’s truck but eventually managed to avoid getting

caught up in the accident was the first person to help Ken out of his truck. The farmer
revealed that Ken’s first words after coming out from the truck were that he screwed up big
time. The farmer’s son Jack was traumatised after witnessing the accident as he was only 6
years old during that time.
SBM Legal, who is representing Ken in this case has received a formal police disclosure
some time back which contained the coroner’s report. In that coroner’s report, evidence has
been found regarding the presence of amphetamine in Mellisa’s blood and this has been
further corroborated by Mellisa’s partner. Mellisa’s partner has claimed that she was
suffering from ADHD and was taking medications for the same which enabled her to
improve her concentration levels.
Sargent Whittle who has been in charge of Williams police station for the last 12 years and is
assigned the responsibility of investigating this case has found incriminating evidence of skid
marks that have been left by the truck driven by Ken. According to Whittle, the skid marks
clearly indicated that Ken was driving well above the speed limit of 80 kmph thereby making
him guilty of overspeeding.
Furthermore, the past criminal record of Ken is another main factor which weakens his case
and increases the possibility of his conviction for involuntary manslaughter. Ken has had a
string of driving related offences and the majority of them are for over speeding. He also had
a record of driving under the influence and he was also convicted 10 years ago for rash
driving that resulted in the death of a person. Considering all the evidences that are stacked
up against him, it is likely that Ken is going to have to spend a significant time in prison due
to his role in the accident which resulted in the death of Mellisa.
Issues arising out of the boy’s evidence:
The most important issue is the admission of the statements made by the boy in a court of
law. The boy was in a traumatised condition when he recorded his statement with the police.
Moreover, he was only 6 years old during the time when he witnessed the accident and this
has a deep and everlasting impact on his mind. If the boy is brought to the court as a witness
for the case, it is highly unclear whether he would be able to remember everything that
happened on that day. There is a lot of doubt and apprehension about whether the boy would
be able to present all the facts in a correct and truthful manner that was recorded earlier by
the police as evidence. Any mismatch between the two statements and the court would be
able to dismiss the evidence terming it inadmissible. The boy could be considered to be a

person of defective intellect as was witnessed in Toohey v Metropolitan police Commissioner
[1965] AC 595. In the Toohey v Metropolitan police Commissioner [1965] AC 595 the jury
held that it was eventually up to the judge to decide whether the witness is able to understand
the nature of an oath and if he/she is able to admit to his testimony (Toohey v Metropolitan
police Commissioner [1965] AC 595).
Possibility of the police providing evidence of what he told them or the
evidence being considered hearsay:
The police in their initial investigation have found that the eye witness accounts provided by
the boy were fairly cogent. This police arrived at this conclusion by obtaining the other eye
witness account in the case (the boy’s father) which was also found to be matching with the
boy’s statement. It eventually depends on the police team instigating the case whether they
have recorded the statements made by the boy and eventually want to present in a court of
law. The aspect of hearsay would not arise in this case as there was not to many eye witness
accounts who would have provided their own versions of the incident to the investigating
authorities (Subramaniam V Director Of Public Prosecutions: PC 1956 -
Swarb.Co.Uk, 2018). The accident took place in a highway where there was not too many
people who stood witness to the events that transpired on that fateful day. Moreover, the fact
that boy’s father Tony Hall was also killed in a farm accident in 2016 essentially made the
boy the sole witness. The court has the liberty of deciding whether the accounts provided by
the boy would be admissible as direct evidence in this case.
Possibility of the police in leading Ken’s prior convictions under S32A:
The police will be able to lead Ken’s prior convictions under S32A. According to the police
records, Ken has had a dubious history in the past and this makes him a habitual offender. He
was previously also involved in a case of dangerous driving which caused death. This
incident occurred ten years back and in this incident his truck collide with a car which
resulted in the death of four law graduates who were travelling in that car. During the trial,
Ken had confessed that he was changing the cassettes in his truck when his truck suddenly
drifted towards the central line in the road and eventually collided with the car. The judge at
the time of announcing the verdict in the case did not consider Ken’s offence to be too
serious to deserve a custodial sentence. Eventually, Ken was let away lightly with signing a
good behaviour bond. Ken had been known to over speed while driving and there were a

couple of times when he had failed to stop at a stop sign. All these past records clearly
indicate that Ken has not learnt from his past mistakes and this makes him a habitual
offender. It is likely that Ken would be getting a harsh sentence as all the evidences are
clearly stacked up against him in this case.
Possibility of evidence about the skidmarks from Sargent Whittle being
challenged in the court:
The evidence about the skidmarks as found by Sargent Whittle could be challenged by the
counsel representing Ken but whether or not it would be acceptable by the court remains to
be seen. The counsel for Ken was previously associated with Sargent Whittle and has
represented him while he was facing disciplinary charges for drinking while on duty.
According to Ken’s counsel in the case, Sargent Whittle was a fool and that it would be
relatively easy for them to discredit the statements made by Whittle due to the fact that he has
had a past record of drinking on duty. But, in the present existing case there is no proven
account of the fact that Whittle was drunk while carrying out the investigation, so it could not
be proved in the courts. Moreover, in the case of Hollingham v Head (1858) 140 ER 1135 the
court has clearly held that a person having once or many times in their life committed a
particular act in a particular way cannot be considered to have done the same thing in the
same way on another different occasions as well. Under this provision, the counsel of Ken
would not be able to challenge the evidence presented by Sargent Whittle (Hollingham v
Head (1858) 140 ER 1135).
Recommendations
Looking at the given scenario, it can be clearly stated that all the evidences are highly stacked
up against Ken and he is likely to face a conviction in the case for culpable homicide not
amounting to murder resulting out of careless driving. Ken’s previous history is also an
important factor which further weakens his case and makes him a habitual offender. Ken has
had a dubious past record in matters concerning improver driving. He was extremely lucky to
have escaped severe punishment when his negligence resulted in the death of four young law
graduates 10 years back. Thus, it is advisable to the counsel of Ken to consider the following:
1) The evidence brought forward in the case needs to be thoroughly evaluated in order to
determine whether they could be actually admissible in a court of law. The counsel for Ken

needs to clearly emphasise on the fact that there is no evidence to suggest that Ken was
driving under the influence of alcohol when the accident took place.
2) There is also a lot of doubt about the fact that whether the eye-witnesses presented in the
case would be able to remember the sequence of events that took place on that fateful night
and present in an accurate manner or not. The counsel for Ken could challenge the eye
witness accounts and cross question them in order to confuse them in their statements.
3) The fact that Mellisa was suffering from ADHD and was on medication needs to be
presented as a strong and substantial before the court. In that coroner’s report, evidence has
been found regarding the presence of amphetamine in Mellisa’s blood and this has been
further corroborated by Mellisa’s partner. The counsel for Ken need to clearly corroborate
before that courts about the possibility of Mellisa being at fault in this case and for which the
accident has taken place. This would help to shift the responsibility of the accident from Ken
to Mellisa and this could help Ken defend his position.