Appeal Court. 15th May,
1935.
Charge against lorry
driver for manslaughter contra.
section .325 of Criminal Code of
three persons on one
count--acquittal in respect of
one and conV1:ction in respect
of two-standard of criminal
negligence discussed.
Held: Appeal allowed.
It is not necessary to set out
the facts of this case.
Montacute Thompson
for Appellant.
A. R. W. Sayle
for Crown does not support
conviction.
The following judgment was
delivered:-
BARTON, J.
This conviction cannot stand and
the learned Acting Solicitor
General who appears for the
Crown states that he is unable
to support it. The accused was
charged in one' count with the
manslaughter of three persons,
section 325 of the Criminal
Code. As the offences were made
the subject of a single count
they must be looked upon as
consisting of one single act,
for it is a well established
rule of law that no one count
may charge an accused with
having committed two or more
separate offences. In view of
the above it was not open to the
learned Judge to acquit the
accused of the manslaughter of
the child Victoria and convict
him of the manslaughter of the
other two persons.
Further, it appears from the
record that the learned .Judge
accepted the evidence of the
defence that it was in trying to
avoid the child Victoria who ran
suddenly into the road that the
accused's lorry struck the other
two persons. Criminal negligence
may be defined as negligence of
such a nature that it amounts to
a reckless disregard for the
lives of others. The learned
Judge having been satisfied that
it was in trying to avoid the
child Victoria that the
accused's lorry struck the other
two persons, we fail to see how
the accused could be properly
held to' be guilty of causing
the deaths of those other two
persons by criminal negligence
nor do we agree that the accused
was driving at an excessive
speed at the time the child,
Victoria, ran out into the road.
For the above reasons the
conviction must be quashed.
