Powered by
MOMENTUM
MEDIA
An Adelaide lawyer jailed for a fatal hit-and-run has failed to appeal her convictions but was successful in lessening her time behind bars.
South Australia’s Court of Appeal has dismissed an application brought by Lauren Jean Willgoose, a lawyer convicted in 2024 of one count of aggravated death caused by dangerous driving and one count of leaving an accident scene after causing death by careless driving.
At the time of the hit-and-run, Willgoose had a blood alcohol concentration of 0.08 grams or more of alcohol in 100ml of blood.
Court of Appeal president, Justice Mark Livesey, along with Justices Sophie David and Timothy Stanley, were satisfied it was open to the District Court to find Willgoose’s failure to observe the road “was grossly defective and went beyond the ordinary risks of road users”.
This was a “substantial cause of the collision and death” of the 70-year-old victim, Anthony Walsh, as he tried to cross the road.
“It was open to His Honour to conclude that a reasonably prudent driver in the circumstances of the appellant would have seen Walsh in the moments after he stepped onto the road, and the appellant’s failure to detect Mr Walsh was grossly defective and constituted driving in a manner dangerous to the public,” the appeal bench said.
Willgoose appealed on the grounds that the verdict “cannot be supported by the weight of the evidence” and the evidence was “insufficient to prove either dangerous driving or careless driving”.
Part of Willgoose’s appeal relied on the evidence of various environmental conditions at the scene of the collision, which she claimed meant a reasonably prudent driver would not have seen Walsh was on the road before “it was too late to avoid the collision”.
However, Justices Livesey, David, and Stanley said the “preponderance of evidence” supported a finding that the area was well lit and rain earlier in the evening would not have been a serious impediment.
Even accepting some “visual clutter” might have impaired the ability to detect Walsh, the bench was satisfied it would have “little effect on the ability of a reasonably prudent driver in the situation of the appellant to see Walsh in the moments after he stepped onto the road”.
Turning to the sentence of eight years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of five years and eight months, Justices Livesey, David, and Stanley said the starting point of six years behind bars “was outside the permissible range for this offence and offender”.
While it was accepted that the offending was a “serious example of a grossly defective lookout” by reason of Willgoose’s intoxication and the fact she did not take evasive action, the bench said there were no other aggravating features that “often attend more serious examples”.
Those factors include speeding, undertaking dangerous manoeuvres, “hoon driving” or drag racing, driving while disqualified, or driving in a manner dangerous for a lengthy period or over an extended distance.
More significantly, the appeal bench considered Willgoose’s personal circumstances, including that she is a mother of a very young son, she has no prior convictions, and good prospects of rehabilitation.
Willgoose has also received “some extra curial punishment by the loss of her career”. At the time of writing, Willgoose’s name does not appear on South Australia’s register of lawyers or on the Legal Profession Conduct Commissioner’s disciplinary register.
“In the circumstances of this case, we consider a sentence of six years’ imprisonment was manifestly excessive,” the court said.
Willgoose was resentenced to a term of imprisonment of six years with a non-parole period of four years, backdated to March 2025.
