THE driver of a car involved in a head-on crash near Robinvale which claimed the lives of his mother and five-year-old daughter has failed in a bid to launch an appeal against his conviction.
Tharanga Ehalape-Gamage argued in the Supreme Court of Victoria Court of Appeal that the jury’s guilty verdict on two counts of dangerous driving causing death and one count of dangerous driving causing serious injury was unreasonable or could not be supported having regard to the evidence.
Ehalape-Gamage’s County Court trial in Match last year heard he was returning to Mildura from a Sri Lankan festival in Swan Hill with his mother and daughter in his Toyota sedan when the vehicle eered onto the wrong side of the road and collided with a Ford sedan travelling in the opposite direction.
The female driver of the Ford suffered seriously injuries including multiple fractures and a collapsed lung.
She had several operations to insert metal screws in her body and spent nine weeks in hospital before returning home.
Ehalape-Gamage contended that the Ford was partially over the midline of the road and created the need for sudden, unsuccessful, evasive action on his part.
The 40-year-old’s case at trial was that, as he negotiated a crest in the two-lane highway, he was confronted by the Ford and if the jury were satisfied of the factual scenario, or if there was the possibility that it was correct, then that was sufficient to create a reasonable doubt as to the applicant’s guilt and therefore the proper verdict was not guilty.
When interviewed by police, the applicant said he had no memory of the collision or its immediate prelude, and he did not give evidence at trial.
The driver of the Ford told the court that her vehicle remained in its appropriate southbound lane and that as the Toyota crested a hill it appeared in her sight line immediately in front of her vehicle.
She said that despite executing a late “veer” to the right the collision was inevitable.
Three Court of Appeal judges said they assumed that the jury considered the driver of the Ford to be a credible and reliable witness, and the only live element in the charges was whether the applicant drove dangerously.
They found the undisputed point of impact was either wholly or substantially in southbound lane in which the Ford sedan was travelling and it would have been open to the jury to reason that the Toyota’s asserted pre-impact emergency evasive manoeuvre was improbable.
“We consider that the jury could safely have concluded that for at least 14.8 metres before collision, the Toyota was well on its incorrect side of the road in a yawing skid blocking the path of the southbound Ford,” the judges found.
“They could further have been satisfied that the Ford did not leave its appropriate southbound lane at any stage leading up to the collision, with the rider that … (the female motorist) may have veered to the right a little in the moment before impact.
“Thus there was no emergency created by the movements of the Ford, and by steering his car onto the wrong side of the road while negotiating a blind crest or shortly thereafter the applicant drove in a manner that was dangerous to the public.
“This involved a serious breach of the proper management and control of his vehicle.”
The three Court of Appeal judges refused Ehalape-Gamage’s application for leave to appeal conviction.
In April last year, the accused man was jailed for a total three years with a non-parole period of 18 months.
