Cornick v the Queen - [1987] TASSC 44

TASSC A40/1987

CITATION: Cornick v The Queen [1987] TASSC 44; A40/1987

PARTIES:  CORNICK, Ann Maree
  v
  THE QUEEN

TITLE OF COURT:  COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL (TAS)
JURISDICTION:  APPELLATE
FILE NO/S:  CCA 92/1986
DELIVERED ON:  28 July 1987
DELIVERED AT:
HEARING DATE:
JUDGMENT OF:

CATCHWORDS:

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Appellant:
             Respondent:
Solicitors:
             Appellant:
             Respondent:

Judgment Number: TASSC
Number of paragraphs: 29

Serial No A40/1987
File No CCA 92/1986

ANN MAREE CORNICK v THE QUEEN

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT  COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
  NEASEY J
  COX J
  UNDERWOOD J

28 July 1987

Orders of the Court:

Appeal against conviction dismissed.
Leave to appeal against sentence refused.

Serial No A40/1987
File No CCA 92/1986

ANN MAREE CORNICK v THE QUEEN

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
NEASEY J

28 July 1987

I agree with the reasons for judgment delivered by Cox J.

Serial No A40/1987
File No CCA 92/1986

ANN MAREE CORNICK v THE QUEEN

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
COX J

28 July 1987

The appellant was charged with the murder by stabbing of her de facto husband. She was acquitted of that charge but was convicted of the alternative charge of manslaughter after the learned trial judge had in the course of his summing–up given directions on the law relating to manslaughter simpliciter and on the effect of provocation pursuant to s160 of the Criminal Code. Although his Honour left to the jury as a justification in law of the act causing death the use of force in defence of another as adumbrated by s49, he declined to leave defence of self pursuant to s46. It is his failure to do so which grounds her appeal against conviction. She also sought leave to appeal against sentence. At the conclusion of the hearing the court dismissed both the appeal and the application for leave to appeal saying that reasons would be published later.

The appellant and the deceased had lived for several years in a de facto relationship of husband and wife, although for about four years prior to his death the deceased had not lived permanently and exclusively with the appellant. It seems that he maintained a separate establishment in order not to jeopardize her receipt of social service payments Nevertheless he was a regular visitor to the appellant's home where in his leisure time he worked as a furniture–maker in her garage and where he ate many of his meals and not infrequently slept. The other occupants of the appellant's home were her two sons, Wayne and Raymond, who were the children of her marriage and who were aged 18 and 16 years respectively, and a third boy Adam aged 12 years who was her son by the deceased.

The evidence led revealed that the deceased frequently abused alcohol and that particularly at those times he would become argumentative. The appellant described his behaviour when drunk from the start of 1986 (two months before his death) in this exchange when giving evidence–in–chief in her defence:

"QWhat was he like…

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 Cornick v the Queen

Details

AGLC: Cornick v the Queen [1987] TASSC 44
Case: [1987] TASSC 44
Decision Date: 28 July 1987

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Ann Maree Cornick appealed against her conviction of manslaughter by the Court of Criminal Appeal in Tasmania. The appellant was acquitted of the murder of her de facto husband, Clement Isaac Richardson, but was convicted of manslaughter. The case arose from an incident on 6 March 1986, when the appellant stabbed Richardson after he threatened to kill her son, Raymond. The appellant argued that she acted in self-defence and in defence of her son, justifying her actions under sections 46 and 49 of the Criminal Code. The primary legal issue was whether the trial judge erred in not directing the jury on self-defence as a possible justification for the appellant's actions. The Court of Criminal Appeal held that there was insufficient evidence to support a direction on self-defence, as the appellant had not presented a reasonable hypothesis that she was repelling force at the time of the fatal stabbing. The court also considered the sentence imposed by the trial judge and found no error in the sentencing process. The appeal against the conviction was dismissed, and the application for leave to appeal against the sentence was refused.

Orders