A Victorian fire fighter has been given a suspended gaol sentence after enter a plea of guilty to a charge of dangerous driving causing the death – see the article from the Age).
Under the Australian Road Rules the driver of an emergency vehicle is exempt the provisions of the rules provided they are sounding their siren or have the warning beacons on and they are taking reasonable care. The rules however only deal with minor matters of traffic regulation. Drivers of emergency vehicles have never been exempt from more serious matters such as the obligation to drive with care, not to drive whilst intoxicated etc so it has always been open for police to charge the driver of an emergency vehicle with offences such as negligent drivers, culpable or dangerous driving causing death and in extreme cases, manslaughter. This case is a sad reminder of that fact and the fact that proceeding to deal with a fire or other emergency doesn’t justify putting other, innocent lives at risk.
Our sympathy must go out both to this firefighter and to the family of the young girl tragically killed in the accident.
Michael Eburn
Australian Emergency Law 
Michael, a quick quote from the linked article, “But in his sentencing today, Judge Les Ross said the level of Beckett’s speed – estimated at 51 km/h in a 60 km/h zone – should not be eliminated as an aggravating feature.
Judge Ross said that there was an “inescapable inference’’ that Beckett, who knew the truck was top-heavy when filled with water, was driving it ‘‘just too fast’’.
Judge Ross said there were few crimes that caused such suffering as dangerous driving causing death.”
WHy do you think 51km/h in a 60km/h zone would be considered dangerous or an aggravating factor? Is there more to this (court transcript, etc) that you’re aware of that explains this?
Also is there also potentially some liability on the CFA’s part (I assume he’s CFA and not DSE or MFB) if there is an inescapable inference that the truck would be top heavy when filled with water?
Luke, the offence of dangerous driving or culpable driving (different names in different states) requires proof that the driving was dangerous in all the circumstances. Adherence to the speed limit does not define that; it can of course be quite dangerous to drive within the speed limit if the circumstances make it dangerous. In this case the accused conceded that given the weight of the truck or the circumstances in which he was driving it was objectively dangerous to drive as he did.
The test I give when talking on this area is ‘if a person, standing on the street, would say ‘gee that fire truck’s moving’ (or some such comment) then it’s being driven too fast’.
Thanks for the link to the article from the Herald Sun which does give some more details on the allegations. As noted in that article, the Crown didn’t have to prove its case as the accused entered a plea of guilty (presumably on advice of his legal advisers) but by entering a plea of guilty he admits all the offence and the Crown don’t have to prove anything. Equally the judge, once he or she accepts the plea must accept that the offence has been committed and sentence accordingly.
Because it was a guilty plea, the case didn’t establish any legal precedent or tell us anything about the manner of the driving. The important lesson for fire fighters and the drivers of emergency vehicles generally (police, ambulance, SES etc) is that the exemptions in the Australian Road Rules only apply to those rules and they are very limited. The more serious provisions that are contained in the Crimes Act or Criminal Code of the relevant state, still apply, so charges of driving in a manner dangerous or worse, manslaughter, can still be brought and as this case shows, the penalty is personal.
As for the liability, by which you mean, I assume, the liability to pay compensation, then yes that falls to the DSE (in this case) but the reality is its actually the TAC (Transport Accident Commission in Victoria). All vehicles are registered (except NSW Rural Fire Service vehicles) and all carry compulsory third party insurance designed to compensate people injured in accidents. The family of this poor girl will get compensated in money terms as would anyone who is injured in a motor vehicle accident where they are not the driver at fault. The deceased was clearly not the driver at fault (she wasn’t the driver) so she would recover from either the insurer of the family car or the fire truck. In this case we are told that the driver of the car (her dad) was in no way at fault so it will all come from the fire truck insurer but in reality it’s all the same pool of money.
If you mean criminal liability no the DSE would not have any of that unless they were complicit in the commission of the offence but the case law (which I wont go into in detail here) shows that this wouldn’t apply here.
Regards
Michael Eburn
Just found another article which gives a bit more information and in part answers some of my opriginal quesitons…
http://www.theage.com.au/national/dangerous-driver-shouldnt-get-jail-term-20091016-h17z.html
also
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/black-saturday-firefighter-andrew-beckett-escapes-jail-over-firetruck-crash-that-killed-teenager-angela-zuclich/story-e6frf7jo-1225790348836
For another case involving the driver of an emergency vehicle see Hughes v Police [2009] SASC 57. This case involved a police officer who was involved in a fatal pursuit of a motorcyclist through a busy shopping area (speed limit 20km/h). Much of the pursuit was recorded on security video. The officer was convicted by a Magistrate and appealed to a single judge of the South Australian Supreme Court.
The Judge went through the nature of the driving and what is meant by ‘dangerous driving’ in South Australia and also considered the officer’s arguments that he was not guilty as the court had to take into account the nature of this duty and that he was, at least in his opinion, complying with Commissioner’s directions.
The appeal judge found that the driving was dangerous and that there was nothing in the Commissioner’s directions that would have justified the driving or even if it did would exempt the officer from the law (the argument that ‘I was just doing my job’ is not a defence).
As a matter of law the case sets no clear or new principle. The case is interesting for people in South Australia as it gives specific reference to their law but from a broader perspective it merely confirms the position noted above, that is that the exemptions under the Road Rules are for minor traffic matters only, not for offences that may be committed during these events.
Michael Eburn
I really like the fresh perpective you did on the issue. Really was not expecting that when I started off studying. Your concepts were easy to understand that I wondered why I never looked at it before. Glad to know that there’s an individual out there that definitely understands what he’s discussing. Great job!