Delaney v The King - [2023] NSWCCA 181

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available
Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Delaney v R [2023] NSWCCA 181
Hearing dates: 5 July 2023
Date of orders: 24 July 2023
Decision date: 24 July 2023
Before: Payne JA at [1]
Stern JA at [77]
Yehia J at [78].
Decision:
(1) Leave to appeal out of time granted.
(2) Leave to appeal granted.
(3) Appeal dismissed.

Catchwords:
CRIME – Appeals – Appeal against conviction – whether jury verdict unreasonable – where applicant convicted of murder – causation – where injuries to deceased’s spleen caused death – whether blow or blows inflicted by applicant caused spleen rupture – whether alternative explanations for spleen rupture were reasonably open – intention – whether applicant intended to inflict grievous bodily harm – whether manslaughter conviction should be substituted for murder

Legislation Cited:
Criminal Appeal Act1912 (NSW)
Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Coughlan v The Queen (2020) 267 CLR 654; [2020] HCA 15
Dansie v R (2022) 96 ALJR 728; [2022] HCA 25
Fennell v The Queen [2019] HCA 37; (2019) 373 ALR 433
Libke v The Queen (2007) 230 CLR 559; [2007] HCA 30
M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; [1994] HCA 63
Pell v The Queen (2020) 268 CLR 123; [2020] HCA 12
R v Delaney [2022] NSWSC 492
R v Hillier (2007) 228 CLR 618; [2007] HCA 13
SKA v The Queen (2011) 243 CLR 400; [2011] HCA 13
The Queen v Baden-Clay (2016) 258 CLR 308; [2016] HCA 35

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Alan Delaney (applicant)
Rex (respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:

FJ Purnell SC (applicant)
G Newtown SC (respondent)

Solicitors:
K Bolas (applicant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (respondent)

File Number(s): 2019/405941; 2020/5074
Publication restriction: Nil
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

Supreme Court

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Date of Decision:

22 February 2022

Before:

Fagan J

File Number(s):

2019/405941

HEADNOTE

[This headnote is not to be read as part of the judgment]

On Boxing Day 2019, Mr Alan Delaney (the applicant) violently assaulted Mr Aaron Baxter beneath a bridge in Queanbeyan. Soon after the assault, Mr Baxter collapsed, and later died in hospital. An autopsy showed the cause of death was a ruptured spleen, leading to internal bleeding and heart failure.

The applicant was indicted on a charge of murder and was tried before a Supreme Court jury in February 2022. An alternative verdict of manslaughter by unlawful and dangerous act was left to the jury.

The main issue was causation. The Crown’s case was that a blow or blows inflicted by the applicant during the assault – in particular a series of knee-blows – were a significant cause of the spleen rupture and therefore Mr Baxter’s death. Mr Joseph Wipiiti, the sole eyewitness to the fight, gave evidence at trial and was cross-examined extensively. He recalled between two and four knee-blows to the deceased’s ribs or abdomen. A police video of Mr Wipiiti demonstrating…

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 Delaney v The King

Details

AGLC: Delaney v The King [2023] NSWCCA 181
Case: [2023] NSWCCA 181
Decision Date: 24 July 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Delaney v The King, the applicant, Delaney, was convicted of the murder of a deceased individual. The dispute centred on the reliability of the jury's verdict, particularly in relation to the causation of death and the applicant's intent. The High Court of Australia was tasked with determining whether the jury's verdict was unreasonable and whether the applicant should be convicted of manslaughter instead of murder. The applicant argued that the evidence did not definitively establish that his actions caused the fatal injuries and that there were alternative explanations for the spleen rupture which should have been considered by the jury. The central legal issues revolved around whether the jury's conclusion regarding causation was unreasonable and whether the applicant intended to inflict grievous bodily harm, as required for a murder conviction.

The court examined the evidence presented and the reasoning employed by the jury. It found that the jury had correctly applied the legal principles in assessing the causation of death and the applicant's intent. The court held that the evidence supported the jury's conclusion that the applicant's actions caused the spleen rupture and that there were no reasonable alternative explanations. Furthermore, the court determined that the applicant intended to inflict grievous bodily harm, which was sufficient to support a murder conviction. The court was satisfied that the jury's verdict was reasonable and based on substantial evidence.

Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the applicant's conviction for murder was upheld. The court found no grounds to substitute a manslaughter conviction for the murder conviction. The High Court confirmed that the jury's verdict was well-founded and that the applicant's appeal did not demonstrate any error in the legal process or outcome.

Orders