Parramatta District Court Report: R V Vibert Case Analysis

This report provides an analysis of the R V Vibert case heard at Parramatta District Court, focusing on charges of dangerous driving. The case involved Athena Vibert, accused of causing the death of a mother and son due to a car crash. The report details the court proceedings, including the judge, legal counsel, prosecutors, and witnesses. It examines the technical aspects of the trial, the courtroom environment, and observations made during the hearing, such as the state prosecuting the accused and the public interest in the case. The report references relevant legislation, including the Crimes Act 1900 and the Road Transport Act 2013, to explain the charges of dangerous driving, negligent driving, and grievous bodily harm. The accused entered three guilty pleas, and the report concludes by highlighting the importance of court decorum and the potential sentencing outcomes based on the legal infringements. The report serves as an insightful analysis of the criminal court visit, connecting legal principles with practical observations.

R V Vibert 1
The Court Report of the Undecided Case of R V Vibert
Student’s Name
Course
Institution
Date
1250 words

R V Vibert 2
Table of Contents
Introduction......................................................................................................................................3
Case Content....................................................................................................................................3
Technical content.............................................................................................................................4
Observations....................................................................................................................................4
Conclusion.......................................................................................................................................5
Bibliography....................................................................................................................................6

R V Vibert 3
Introduction
Dangerous driving is among the serious traffic offences in New South Wales (Sanders, 2010).
The offences are provided for under the Crimes Act 1900 and the Road Transport Act 2013.
These serious traffic offences in NSW are collectively called major offences. Under Section 4 of
the Road Transport Act 2013, a major offence is;
“an offence by a person (the offender), in respect of the death of or bodily harm to another
person caused by or arising out of the use of a motor vehicle driven by the offender at the time of
the occurrence out of which the death of or harm to the other person arose”
An offender of any crime of that kind is either convicted of manslaughter or murder after trial
(Edney, and Bagaric, 2007. This court report will be looking at an accused person who was
charged with the offence of dangerous driving among other counts of traffic offences.
Case Content
I went at Parramatta District Court on the 29th of April 2019 at 9:30 am. Parramatta District
Court is a district court in NSW that has the jurisdiction of hearing serious criminal cases. The
judge’s name was J Bennett. The nature of the case was a trial before the court was a criminal
case involving an offender accused of major traffic offence of dangerous driving by the name
Athena Vibert from Balmoral, who is now 52 years. Athena Vibert was accused of killing killed
a mother (Julie Bullock) and her son on March 7 2017, just before 8 am and was represented by a
male attorney.
On the day of the crash, Ms. Vibert was driving a silver Holden Astra and it was alleged that she
swerved across the median strip on the Hume Motorway where he crashed head-on with the
family of Mrs. Bullock leaving both cars mangled wrecks. Vibert also got injured and had been
hospitalized at Liverpool Hospital for several days. The crash took place about 1 km south of the
Picton Road- off. Mrs. Bullock had a daughter (Sienna) in her four-wheel drive car who survived
the accident but with severe injuries on her head and Chest. The son did not die immediately
after the accident but later at Liverpool Hospital where he had been taken in a critical condition.
Vibert was first prosecuted at Picton Local Court House. Ms. Vibert was charged with other
counts; negligent driving, driving occasioning grievous bodily harm (Sienna), and driving on the
dividing strip. After having previously made two pleas of not guilty on two counts on July last

R V Vibert 4
year (2018), and in an unanticipated twist of events, on the 29th of April 2019, Athena Vibert
entered three guilty pleas and is now scheduled for a verdict on August 28th 2019. Athena Vibert
violated the s52A(1)a Crimes Act 1900 that provides that one is guilty of an offence if the car he
is driving gets into an impact that results in the death of another person. It is out of her conduct
of driving on the dividing strip, Vibert caused the death of Mrs. Bullock and the twin brother to
Sienna. S52(2)(a) of the same Act provides that if out of the conduct of a person’s driving,
serious bodily harm comes, then the person driving is guilty of an offence. Certainly, Ms. Vibert
caused Sienna serious bodily harm on her head and chest. Under S4 (1) Road Transport
Act 2013, driving is defined as being “in control of the steering, movement or propulsion of a
vehicle”. Sienna certainly suffered grievous bodily harm which is defined as “really serious
bodily injury” in the case of Swan v R (2016). Under s117 (4) of the Road Transport Act 2013,
"grievous bodily harm" constitutes any severe or irreversible deformity. It was described in the
courtroom that she had really bad head and chest injuries and was lucky to be alive after the
collision. Ms. Vibert’s driving on the dividing strip is a characteristic of negligent driving.
Negligent driving is an offence under s117 (1) of the Road Transport Act 2013.
Technical content
The Court personnel in the case were; the judge, legal counsel of the accused, state prosecutors, a
legal clerk, and police officers. The judge’s roles was to listen to the arguments of both ideas and
make a judgment. The legal counsel was representing Athena Vibert against the prosecution. The
prosecutors were representing the state in the criminal trial. The clerk would assist the judge to
record the trail while police officers maintained order during the trial. There were also witnesses
of the state to give evidence of what happened before the crash, media gallery and the public
seated to listen to the trial. Within the courtroom, each of the persons mentioned had a precise
designated spot to stand or sit. This conforms to the roles explained by the Justice Education
Society (2019).
The defence lawyers as well as the two prosecutors were warmly dressed in formal suits, ties and
shirts and were constantly taking notes and reviewing some big chunks of papers on top of their
desks. They also had neatly shaved and well-kept hair. They spoke in formal English with a lot
of with technical terms and quoting from legal documents. Every time the addressed the judge
they used the terms “Your honour” as a sign of respect.

R V Vibert 5
Observations
I sat at the back of the courtroom and I was able to observe most of the happenings during the
period of the criminal hearing. The first observation was that the state was suing the accused.
Prosecutors represented the state. I confirmed that in criminal cases, it is normally a defendant
against the state unlike in civil cases where two civilians are in a conflict where one sues the
other (Anderson and Heath, 2016). Previously, I have attended some civil hearings. The mood in
the court was generally tensed showing the gravity of an offence leading to murder and serious
bodily harm. The courtroom was full of mixed age groups of people and many journalists were
taking pictures and recording videos of the trail. This was a confirmation that this case had
attracted so much public interest. I confirmed one principle of criminal law that the hearing must
be done in public. There was only a single judge (J Bennett) which was a surprise as I had
expected to find a jury involving almost 10 members. One of the prosecutors was a lady (which I
was longing to see because of the societal perception that not many women are criminal
lawyers). There still was the cross-examination of witnesses despite the defendant pleading
guilty immediately after the trails begun as explained by (The Office of the Director of Public
Prosecutions, 2019). Throughout the hearing, there was total silence, and everyone was attentive
not to act in a manner suggestive of contempt of court. So did I.
Conclusion
The criminal court visit was a success, and I was able to identify with most of the things I have
learnt in criminal classes. Courts are places of honour and require good behaviour in appearance,
behaviour and language. I realized that despite a pleading of guilt, a hearing must be made with
witnesses testifying before the court. In this, I see, will be the determining point whether the
offence of dangerous driving constituted to manslaughter or murder. Athena Vibert could,
therefore, be sentenced to murder or manslaughter from her infringements of the different
sections of the Crimes Act 1900 and the Road Transport Act 2013 come August 2019.

R V Vibert 6
Bibliography
Edney, R. and Bagaric, M., 2007. Australian sentencing: Principles and practice. Cambridge
University Press.
Sanders, J., 2010. Youth Justice: Your Guide to Cops and Courts in New South Wales. Federation
Press.
The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. (2019). Steps in the Prosecution Process | The
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. [Online] Available at:
https://www.odpp.nsw.gov.au/victims-witnesses/the-prosecution-process [Accessed 3 May
2019].
Justice Education Society (2019) The Justice System; Court Personnel [online] Available at:
https://www.lawlessons.ca/sites/default/files/handouts/LP-4.5-Final.pdf [Accessed 3 May 2019].
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Road Transport Act 2013 (NSW)