The Court: Melbourne Magistrates Court
The Lawyer: David Dribbin
The Charges:
- Dangerous Driving
- Speeding
The Allegations:
Our client awoke one morning to hearing her husband’s panic, their dog had suffered a seizure, and was completely limp. She went to investigate, and her husband had begun to lift their dog into their car to take him to the animal hospital. Whilst being lifted, their dog had bitten our client’s husband’s neck and drawn blood. There was a large gash on his neck, and blood was streaming out.
Our client jumped in the car, with her husband in the back seat with the dog and began to drive to the hospital for her husband’s injuries. He informed her to drive directly to the animal hospital as the dog had stopped breathing. Our client then sped to the animal hospital and was captured by a speed camera travelling 110 km/h in a 60 km/h zone. The camera captured our client at 6:30 am.
Animal hospital records show the dog’s admission at 7:00 a.m., and our client’s husband’s hospital admission records show his arrival at 7:30 a.m.
At Court:
Dangerous driving and speeding offences carry a mandatory licence loss. Our client was very remorseful for her behaviour and did not intend to dispute the charges. However, our solicitor advised her that the defence of Sudden or Extraordinary Emergency may apply to her situation, so her charges could be successfully challenged.
What is a Sudden or Extraordinary Emergency?
Sudden or extraordinary emergency is a defence governed by section 322R of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic). It states:
- Conduct carried out in circumstances of sudden or extraordinary emergency does not constitute an offence.
- This section applies if –
- The person reasonably believes that –
- Circumstances of sudden or extraordinary emergency exist, and
- The conduct is the only reasonable way to deal with the emergency, and
- The conduct is a reasonable response to the emergency
- The section only applies in the case of murder if the person believes that the emergency involves a risk of death or really serious injury.
At the time of the offence, the prosecution formed the view that the circumstances of a sudden or extraordinary emergency were not available because the client could have called an ambulance. Our solicitor argued that it may have been an acceptable way to handle the emergency regarding her husband; however, the emergency arising from the dog’s condition did satisfy the test, as there are no animal ambulances (or not in that area). Our solicitor then collated material for the prosecution to demonstrate the time frames, including the time of the incident and the time of the animal’s admission to the veterinary hospital.
The Outcome:
Our solicitor convinced the prosecution that if this matter were to be contested in court, the defence of Sudden or Extraordinary Emergency would be made out, and the prosecution, therefore, agreed to withdraw all charges.
Our client suffered no licence loss or other punishment and left the court without any charges, criminal record, or demerit points. This was a fantastic outcome because the client first attended our office to seek representation regarding a guilty plea.
This case highlights why it is essential that every lawyer appropriately assesses every case that comes before them. If it were not for this client attending Dribbin & Brown Criminal Lawyers, she would have served at least 12 months off the road.
