Bloodsworth v The Queen - [2019] NSWCCA 260

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: Bloodsworth v R [2019] NSWCCA 260
Hearing dates: 4 October 2019
Date of orders: 04 October 2019
Decision date: 01 November 2019
Before: Bathurst CJ at [1]
Bell P at [2]
Harrison J at [3]
Decision:
(1)   Grant the applicant leave to appeal.
(2)   Allow the appeal.
(3)   Quash the conviction of the applicant for the offence of manslaughter.
(4)   Enter a verdict of acquittal.
(5)   The applicant is to be released forthwith.

Catchwords: CRIME – conviction appeal – where appellant convicted of manslaughter based on joint criminal enterprise – whether verdict unreasonable – whether mere presence when crime committed and post-offence conduct were capable of amounting to proof of an agreement to commit the crime – verdict of acquittal entered
Legislation Cited: Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), s 5(1)
Cases Cited: AZ v R [2018] NSWCCA 294
Stanford v R [2018] NSWCCA 249
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Rhiannon Lisa Bloodsworth (Applicant)
Crown (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
Ian McLachlan (Applicant)
Frank Veltro and Monika Knowles (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Blair Criminal Lawyers (Applicant)
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2015/255218
Publication restriction: Nil
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

Supreme Court of New South Wales

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Citation:

[2018] NSWSC 79

Date of Decision:

8 February 2018

Before:

Adamson J

File Number(s):

2015/255218

Judgment

BATHURST CJ: For the reasons given by Harrison J, I joined in the orders made by the Court on 4 October 2019.
BELL P: I agree with Harrison J.
HARRISON J: On 4 October 2019, this Court made the following orders:

Grant the applicant leave to appeal.

Allow the appeal.

Quash the conviction of the applicant for the offence of manslaughter.

Enter a verdict of acquittal.

The applicant is to be released forthwith.

My reasons for joining in the orders of the Court are as follows.
Between 16 October 2017 and 27 October 2017, Rhiannon Lisa Bloodsworth and a co-offender, Trent Errington, stood trial before Adamson J and a jury charged with the murder of Jay Cerin at Hebersham in August 2015. Both offenders pleaded not guilty. On 27 October 2017, the jury returned verdicts with respect to each offender of not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter. On 8 February 2018, her Honour sentenced Ms Bloodsworth to a term of imprisonment for 11 years commencing on 31 August 2015 and expiring on 30 August 2026 with a non-parole period of 7 years and 6 months expiring on 27 February 2023.
By her notice of appeal filed on 17 July 2019, Ms Bloodsworth appeals against her conviction upon the single ground that the verdict was unreasonable and cannot be supported having regard to the nature and quality of the evidence. The ground of appeal does not involve a question of law alone and Ms Bloodsworth accordingly requires leave to appeal: s 5(1) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912.
Ms Bloodsworth also seeks leave to appeal against…

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 Bloodsworth v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Bloodsworth v The Queen [2019] NSWCCA 260
Case: [2019] NSWCCA 260
Decision Date: 01 November 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Bloodsworth, was convicted of manslaughter by the Supreme Court of Victoria on the basis that he was a party to a joint criminal enterprise with others. The appellant appealed against his conviction, arguing that the verdict was unreasonable and that the evidence was insufficient to prove his involvement in the crime. The central legal issues revolved around whether the mere presence at the scene of the crime and subsequent conduct of the appellant were sufficient to establish his agreement to participate in the crime. The court had to determine if the evidence presented was adequate to support the conclusion that the appellant was a party to the joint criminal enterprise.

The court considered the evidence thoroughly, focusing on the appellant's presence and actions during and after the commission of the crime. It examined whether the appellant's presence at the scene, coupled with his conduct post-offence, could be construed as an agreement to commit the crime. The court found that the evidence did not sufficiently prove that the appellant had entered into an agreement to commit the crime, as the mere presence at the scene and subsequent actions were not enough to establish such an agreement. Consequently, the court concluded that the verdict was unreasonable and ordered an acquittal. The reasoning was grounded in the necessity for clear and convincing evidence to establish the appellant's participation in the joint criminal enterprise.

In light of the above findings, the court ordered the appellant's conviction to be quashed and an acquittal to be entered in its place. The court emphasised that the prosecution must provide compelling evidence to establish each party's role in a joint criminal enterprise, and that mere presence and subsequent conduct are insufficient to meet this burden. This decision underscores the importance of robust evidence in criminal convictions, particularly in cases involving joint criminal enterprises.

Orders