Kapunda Road Royal Commission

The Kapunda Road Royal Commission is a royal commission created by the Government of South Australia to inquire into the circumstances surrounding the hit and run death of Ian Humphrey and the circumstances around the trial and conviction of Eugene McGee. The Royal Commissioner is Greg James QC. The first hearing of the Commission was on 12 May 2005 and the report was scheduled to be delivered on 20 June 2005.

Charges for perverting the course of justice have been made against the McGee brothers.

Background

Ian Humphrey was riding a bike on Kapunda Road, north of Adelaide, when he was struck by driver Eugene Mcgee, an Adelaide barrister, at night on 30 November 2003. McGee did not stop or render assistance. At his trial McGee was acquitted of causing death by dangerous driving, but convicted of the lesser offences of driving without due care and failure to stop and render assistance following an accident. This was due to psychiatric evidence being presented in court mitigating McGee's actions. He was fined $2,300 (discounted from $3,000 because of a guilty plea) and was disqualified from holding a driver's licence for twelve months.

However, there was controversy over this conviction and also the alleged reluctance of prosecutors to present evidence from two witnesses to McGee's driving earlier in the evening, Tony and John Zisimou. There are also alleged anomalies concerning the behaviour of police in not breath testing McGee and the opportunity that major prosecution witness Tony Felice had to give evidence.

Groups supporting cyclists and victims of crime groups staged a number of protests against the decision of the court and the Government created the Royal Commission.

Terms of Reference

# Why the investigating police did not ask or require Mr McGee to submit to a breath analysis test or blood test and did not apply for orders that such tests be conducted under the Criminal Law (Forensic Procedures) Act in order to determine Mr McGee’s blood alcohol concentration.
# Whether the principal witness, Mr Tony Felice, was given a proper opportunity to give evidence about his observations of Mr McGee’s driving immediately before the collision generally and on the defence case that McGee was attempting to overtake Mr Felice from a position about 25 to 30 metres to the rear of Felice’s car.
# Whether Mr Tony or Mr John Zisimou provided information to the police about the manner of McGee’s driving prior to and following the collision.
# Why the decision was made not to call Mr Tony or Mr John Zisimou or both at trial.
# Whether it would have served the interests of justice for the prosecution to lead, at trial, evidence in rebuttal of the psychiatric evidence presented by the defence.
# If the answer to the preceding question is yes why that evidence was not presented. In particular, was there an adequate opportunity for rebuttal evidence to be presented.
# Whether it would have served the interests of justice for the prosecution to present expert psychiatric or other evidence on the sentencing hearing to support it’s submission that the Court should reject the explanation given at trial for Mr McGee’s failure to stop and give assistance.
# If the answer to the preceding question is yes why that evidence was not presented. In particular, was there an adequate opportunity to present that evidence.

Proceedings

Evidence was heard from lawyers involved in the trial, respected psychiatrists, police officers, witnesses and members of the McGee family. Members of the public also made submissions.

External links

* [http://www.service.sa.gov.au/ContentPages/sagovt/files/krrc/6_05_05.pdf Announcement of the Commission]