Legal Research
Cases
Croxford v The Queen

Croxford v The Queen

Case [2011] VSCA 433 16 December 2011

Criminal Liability

Aid, abet, counsel or procure

Manslaughter

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2009 0881
RONALD DALE CROXFORD	Applicant
v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	MAXWELL P, ASHLEY JA and ROSS AJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	2 August 2011
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	16 December 2011
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2011] VSCA 433
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	The Queen v Croxford & Doubleday [2009] VSC 516 (Coghlan J)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Conviction – Manslaughter – Aid, abet, counsel or procure – Whether verdict of guilty is unreasonable and cannot be supported having regard to the evidence – Whether verdict of guilty to manslaughter is irreconcilable with the verdict of guilty for the co-accused to defensive homicide – Application for leave to appeal against conviction refused.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr D C Hallowes	Vaccaro’s Solicitors
For the Crown	Mrs C M Quin	Mr C Hyland, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

MAXWELL P:

I have had the considerable advantage of reading in draft the joint reasons for judgment of Ashley JA and Ross AJA. For the reasons which their Honours have given, I too would refuse the application for leave to appeal.

ASHLEY JA

ROSS AJA:

Introduction

Early on the morning of 27 July 2008 William Winter died as a result of a blow to the back of his head. The deceased had been struck with a garden stake and the extent of the injury inflicted indicated a blow of significant force. Later that day, the applicant (Ronald Dale Croxford) and his co-accused (Ricky Doubleday) were charged with murder.

The presentments in respect of both accused preferred one count of murder. On 11 August 2009, after a 19 day trial, the jury found Croxford and Doubleday not guilty of murder. Doubleday was found guilty of defensive homicide and sentenced to 9 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 6 years. Croxford was found guilty of manslaughter and sentenced to 7 years and 6 months’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 5 years.

Croxford has applied for leave to appeal against his conviction. Before turning to the grounds of appeal it is convenient to briefly set out the circumstances of the offending.

Overview of the Facts

In the early hours of the morning of Sunday 27 July 2008, Croxford and Doubleday, the deceased Winter and two young women were outside the Birralee Tavern in West Wodonga. Shortly after 1.00am the Tavern closed and they congregated on the veranda of the premises and engaged in friendly conversation.

The atmosphere was relaxed. Over the next 20 minutes all patrons, hotel and security staff left the Tavern.

The group remained outside the Tavern for more than 20 minutes before Doubleday made a remark to which the deceased took offence. It was then that the deceased produced a knife. What the deceased did with the knife was disputed on the evidence but whether he handled the knife in a threatening manner or not, it is common ground that the knife was produced and that the applicant reacted towards…

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 Croxford v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Croxford v The Queen [2011] VSCA 433
Case: [2011] VSCA 433
Decision Date: 16 December 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Croxford v The Queen, the respondent sought leave to appeal against his conviction for manslaughter. The applicant had been convicted in the Supreme Court of Western Australia for his involvement in a fight which resulted in the death of the deceased. The legal issues that arose for determination by the Court were whether the verdict of guilty was unreasonable and could not be supported having regard to the evidence, and whether the verdict of guilty to manslaughter was irreconcilable with the verdict of guilty for the co-accused to defensive homicide. The Court considered the evidence and submissions made by both parties, and found that the verdict of the jury was open to them on the evidence and that the verdicts of the applicant and his co-accused were not irreconcilable. The Court held that the applicant had failed to establish that the verdict of the jury was unreasonable, and therefore the application for leave to appeal against conviction was refused.

The Court considered the evidence in the case and noted that the applicant and his co-accused had given conflicting accounts of the events leading up to the death of the deceased. The Court found that the jury was entitled to accept the evidence of the co-accused, who claimed that he had acted in self-defence, and to reject the evidence of the applicant. The Court also found that the applicant's claim that he had not intended to kill the deceased was undermined by the fact that he had armed himself with a knife before the fight. The Court held that the verdict of the jury was open to them on the evidence, and that the applicant had failed to establish that the verdict was unreasonable. The Court further held that the verdicts of the applicant and his co-accused were not irreconcilable, as the applicant's involvement in the fight did not necessarily mean that he intended to kill the deceased.

The Court held that the applicant had not demonstrated that the verdict of the jury was unreasonable or incapable of being supported on the evidence. The Court found that the jury was entitled to accept the evidence of the co-accused and reject the evidence of the applicant, and that the applicant's claim that he had not intended to kill the deceased was undermined by the fact that he had armed himself with a knife before the fight. The Court held that the verdicts of the applicant and his co-accused were not irreconcilable, as the applicant's involvement in the fight did not necessarily mean that he intended to kill the deceased. The Court therefore refused the application for leave to appeal against conviction.

No orders were made as the application for leave to appeal against conviction was refused.

Orders