Director of Public Prosections Reference No. 1 of 1991 R v B in the matter of Section 30A of the Federal Court Act 1976 in the matter of a reference by the Director of Public Prosecution for the Australian Capital.. - [1992] FCA 256

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS REFERENCE No. 1 of 1991
Re: R. v. B.
And: SECTION 30A OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976; A REFERENCE BY
THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS FOR THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY ON
POINTS OF LAW ARISING FROM A TRIAL
No. ACT G80 of 1991
FED No. 256
Criminal Law
(1992) 35 FCR 259

COURT

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
Gallop(1), Davies(1) and Beaumont(1) JJ.

CATCHWORDS

Criminal Law - issue of self-defence - verdict of acquittal by direction - self-defence as a jury question - absence of discretion to direct acquittal - relevant principles

Federal Court of Australia Act 1976, s.30A

Drugs of Dependence Act 1989

Zecevic v. Director of Public Prosecutions (Vic) (1987) 162 CLR 645

Doney v. The Queen (1990) 171 CLR 207

Towers (1984) 14 A Crim R 12

Jayasema (1970) Ac 618

Haas (1986) 22 A Crim R 299

R. v. R. (1989) 18 NSWLR 74

HEARING

CANBERRA

#DATE 22:4:1992

Counsel for the Appellant: Mr K. Crispin QC and Ms M. Doogan

Solicitors for the Appellant: Director of Public Public Prosections (ACT)

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Linega

Solicitors for the Appellant: Messrs Ahern Morris Vincent

ORDER

THE COURT:

(1) Answers the question "whether the trial judge

erred in law in directing a verdict of acquittal" - Yes.

Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

JUDGE1

On 29 October 1991 the accused was arraigned in the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory on an indictment containing one count of attempted murder and one count of attempting to inflict grievous bodily harm upon one and the same person. Upon his arraignment he pleaded not guilty. A jury was empanelled and his trial took place. At the end of the Crown case on 31 October 1991 counsel for the accused submitted that there was no evidence to support the elements of either offence, particularly that the accused intended to kill or inflict grievous bodily harm. On 1 November 1991 the learned trial judge directed "that a verdict of acquittal be entered", although not, it appears, on the ground of insufficiency of evidence, but on the ground that the accused must have been acting in self defence and accordingly neither offence had been committed.

Pursuant to s.30A of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 the Director of Public Prosecutions has submitted for determination the following questions arising at or in connection with the trial:

"1. Is a prima facie case established by evidence of the ingredients of the offence charged?

2. Is a trial judge entitled to direct a verdict of acquittal on the basis of a belief that the evidence led in the case for the prosecution:

(a) Does not exclude the possibility that the accused acted in self defence; or

(b) leads, in the Judge's view, to the inference that the accused must have been acting in self defence?

3. May police…

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 Director of Public Prosections Reference No. 1 of 1991 R v B...

Details

AGLC: Director of Public Prosections Reference No. 1 of 1991 R v B In the matter of Section 30A of the Federal Court Act 1976 In the matter of a reference by the Director of Public Prosecution for the Australian Capital Territory on points of law arising from a trial [1992] FCA 256 ((1992) 35 FCR 259)
Case: [1992] FCA 256
Decision Date: 22 APRIL 1992

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of a reference by the Director of Public Prosecution for the Australian Capital, the case of Director of Public Prosecutions Reference No. 1 of 1991 R v B dealt with the issue of self-defence in a criminal context. The defendant, B, had been acquitted by the trial judge who directed the jury to return a verdict of not guilty based on self-defence. The Director of Public Prosecutions sought to challenge this decision, arguing that the trial judge had erred in law by directing the verdict of acquittal.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the trial judge had the discretion to direct a verdict of acquittal in circumstances where self-defence was a question of fact for the jury. The court needed to determine whether the trial judge was correct in his application of the law concerning self-defence and the appropriate role of the judge in such cases. It was essential to establish whether the judge had the authority to direct an acquittal when self-defence was a viable defence.

The court held that the trial judge had indeed erred in law by directing the verdict of acquittal. The principles governing self-defence require that it be left to the jury to determine whether the accused acted in self-defence, unless the evidence is such that no reasonable jury could entertain that possibility. The judge does not have the discretion to direct an acquittal based on self-defence. The court emphasised the importance of allowing the jury to assess the facts and circumstances surrounding the defence, ensuring that the accused's right to a fair trial is upheld. Consequently, the court answered the reference in the affirmative, finding that the trial judge had indeed erred in directing the verdict of acquittal.

Orders

Orders of the court

THE COURT:

(1) Answers the question "whether the trial judge

erred in law in directing a verdict of acquittal" - Yes.

Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.