Aidid v R - [2010] VSCA 56

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA
COURT OF APPEAL

THE QUEEN	No 788 of 2008
v
SHARMAKE AIDID
and
and	THE QUEEN	No 789 of 2008
v
MA

---

JUDGES	ASHLEY and WEINBERG JJA and COGHLAN AJA
WHERE HELD	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING	13 October 2009
DATE OF JUDGMENT	22 March 2010
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION	[2010] VSCA 56
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM	[2008] VSC 299 (Nettle JA)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Conviction – Manslaughter by unlawful and dangerous act – Applicants found guilty of manslaughter and a third man guilty of assault – Whether inconsistent verdicts – Whether verdicts unsafe and unsatisfactory – Whether causation established – Whether intervening cause – Whether misdirection as to relevance of deceased’s intoxication vis-à-vis causation – Leave to appeal refused.

---

Appearances:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr D A Trapnell, SC	Mr C Hyland, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Applicant Aidid	Mr C B Boyce	Victoria Legal Aid
For the Applicant MA	Mr P F Tehan, QC with Mr M J Croucher	Michael J Gleeson & Associates

ASHLEY JA:

On 18 June 2008, after a trial in the Supreme Court, a jury found the applicants Sharmake Aidid (‘Aidid’) and MA guilty of the manslaughter of Lionel Norris on 6 December 2006. The jury also found a third man, Abdeweli Mohamed (‘Mohamed’), not guilty of manslaughter but guilty of assault.

On 13 August 2008 the learned trial judge ordered that each of Aidid and MA be detained in a Youth Justice Centre for a period of three years.

Grounds of Appeal

Now the applicants seek leave to appeal against conviction. Although their grounds are differently ordered, the applicants rely in substance upon the same grounds in respect of their conviction applications, namely –

1.The verdict of guilty is unreasonable or cannot be supported having regard to the evidence.
2.The applicant’s conviction was inconsistent with the acquittal of [Mohamed] on the count of manslaughter.
3.The learned trial judge erred in his directions to the jury on the question of causation, and, in particular, the learned trial judge erred as to how the jury might take into account the deceased’s level of intoxication when considering whether the applicant had caused the deceased’s death.

Circumstances generally described

As at 6 December 2006, both Aidid and Mohamed were aged 19. MA was aged 17.

That night, Aidid, Mohamed and a third man went out in a borrowed vehicle. At the Heidelberg Mall, where they went to buy a pizza, they met MA. Later on, five of them set off for home in the vehicle. Two men were dropped off. That left Aidid, Mohamed and MA in the vehicle.

Petrol was needed, so they stopped at a service station on the north side of Bell Street, Heidelberg Heights. Mohamed alone got out of the vehicle. As he was filling the tank, he was approached by the deceased, a 42 year old man.

The deceased was drunk. For some hours that day he had been drinking vodka mixers. He asked Mohamed for a…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Aidid v R

Details

AGLC: Aidid v R [2010] VSCA 56
Case: [2010] VSCA 56
Decision Date: 22 March 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Aidid v R concerned the applicants who were convicted of manslaughter and a third man who was convicted of assault. The dispute arose out of a stabbing incident that resulted in the death of the victim. The High Court of Australia was tasked with reviewing the applicants' convictions and determining whether the verdicts were inconsistent, unsafe, and unsatisfactory, as well as whether the trial judge misdirected the jury regarding the relevance of the victim's intoxication to the causation of the death. The applicants argued that the verdicts were inconsistent and that the trial judge had misdirected the jury by stating that the victim's intoxication was not relevant to the causation of the death. They also argued that the intervening cause of the victim's actions negated their liability for manslaughter.

The legal issues before the court were whether the verdicts were inconsistent, whether they were unsafe and unsatisfactory, whether causation was established, whether there was an intervening cause, and whether there was a misdirection by the trial judge as to the relevance of the victim's intoxication to causation. The court needed to consider whether the applicants' convictions were supported by the evidence and whether the trial judge's directions to the jury were correct. The court also had to consider whether the victim's actions were an intervening cause that broke the chain of causation between the applicants' actions and the victim's death.

The court held that the verdicts were not inconsistent, and that the jury was entitled to find the applicants guilty of manslaughter and the third man guilty of assault. The court found that the applicants' actions were an unlawful and dangerous act that caused the victim's death, and that the intervening cause of the victim's actions did not break the chain of causation. The court also found that the trial judge's direction to the jury that the victim's intoxication was not relevant to causation was correct, as the focus was on the applicants' actions and whether they caused the victim's death. The court held that the verdicts were safe and satisfactory, and that there was no misdirection by the trial judge. The applicants' appeal was dismissed, and leave to appeal to the High Court was refused.

In conclusion, the court found that the applicants' convictions were supported by the evidence and that the verdicts were not inconsistent, unsafe, or unsatisfactory. The court held that the intervening cause of the victim's actions did not break the chain of causation, and that the trial judge's direction to the jury was correct. The applicants' appeal was dismissed, and leave to appeal to the High Court was refused.

Orders