Matthew Domio - [2018] NSWDC 16

District Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Matthew Domio [2018] NSWDC 16
Hearing dates: 05 February 2018, 06 February 2018, 07 February 2018, 08 February 2018
Date of orders: 08 February 2018
Decision date: 08 February 2018
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Haesler SC DCJ
Decision:
Jury Directions

Catchwords: Assault causing death while accused intoxicated, Summing up to jury, causation - a statutory or common law test?
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Cases Cited: Andrew v R [2000] NSWCCA 310
R v Mofatt [2000] NSWCCA 174
Texts Cited: Quitler, J, (2014) One punch laws, Mandatory Minimums and 'Alcohol-Fuelled' violence as an aggravating factor: Implications for NSW Criminal Law. International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy 3(1); 81-106
Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Matthew Domio (Offender)
Director of Public Prosecutions
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr Flynn (for the offender)
Mr M Clarke (for the Director of Public Prosecutions)
Solicitors:
Ms Quinn (for the offender)
Mr D Coulton (for the Director of Public Prosecutions)

File Number(s): 2015/00154250

Judgment

Matthew Domio is on trial at Wollongong District Court charged with an offence of assault causing death aggravated by him being intoxicated: s25A(2) Crimes Act 1900. This matter had been to trial before me in 2016. That jury could not agree and were eventually discharged.
A jury was empanelled this Monday, 05 February 2018. The Crown case has now closed. No defence evidence was called. The jury have been given a written direction setting out the elements that must be proved and key terms: MFI 12. Counsel have just addressed. I will sum up to the jury after lunch
In short summary it is alleged that on 24 May 2015 Matthew, then 29 years old and his father Dario Domio, then 56 years old, were drinking at the family home in Dapto. Both were heavily intoxicated.
Dario Domio had a number of physical and mental health problems. He had recently been detained for a short period at Shellharbour Hospital. At times when Matthew was growing up Dario was violent toward him. It is alleged that following an argument Dario stood up and "got in Matthew's face." Instead of restraining him, as he had done on a number prior occasions when confronted by his father, Matthew "lost it" and intentionally hit his father to the jaw. The blow fractured Dario's jaw and loosened a tooth, which soon after came out. Dario fell to the carpet unconscious.
Matthew immediately called to his brother Adam, who was in another room, to come and help. Matthew then ran off to nearby house where Mr Meyers and Mr Weston lived. Earlier that day he was involved in a drunken dispute with those men at that house.
Dario Domio soon regained consciousness. When Matthew returned he abused him. Dario phoned his wife, Mathew's mother. He complained to her of being hit and losing a tooth. He resumed drinking. An hour or so later he slumped in chair. It soon became apparent that he was unconscious not asleep. An ambulance…

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 Matthew Domio

Details

AGLC: Matthew Domio [2018] NSWDC 16
Case: [2018] NSWDC 16
Decision Date: 08 February 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant, Matthew Domio, was charged with assault occasioning death. Domio was found to be intoxicated at the time of the incident and was accused of causing the death of the victim through his assault. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The central issue before the court was whether the jury should be directed to consider causation under the statutory framework or under common law principles. This question arose due to the specific provisions of the relevant statute and the potential overlap with common law causation principles.

The court had to determine the appropriate legal test for causation in the context of an assault causing death while the accused was intoxicated. The defendant's legal team argued that the statutory test should be applied, which focuses on the circumstances under which the assault occurred and the defendant's state of intoxication. Conversely, the prosecution maintained that the common law principles of causation should be employed, which require a more general assessment of whether the defendant's actions were a significant contributing factor to the death. The court carefully considered the wording and intent of the statute, as well as the established common law principles, to provide clear directions to the jury on the appropriate test for causation.

The court concluded that the statutory test was the correct approach in this case. The judge directed the jury to consider the statutory framework, which encompasses the circumstances of the assault and the defendant's state of intoxication, as the primary test for causation. The court provided detailed instructions to the jury on how to apply this test, ensuring that they understood the specific statutory requirements. The judge emphasised the importance of considering the intoxication of the defendant and the context in which the assault occurred when assessing causation.

The final orders of the court included detailed jury directions on the application of the statutory test for causation in the context of an assault causing death while the accused was intoxicated. The judge provided clear and comprehensive instructions to the jury to ensure they understood and correctly applied the statutory framework in their deliberations.

Orders

Orders of the court

Jury Directions

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	Matthew Domio [2018] NSWDC 16
Hearing dates:	05 February 2018, 06 February 2018, 07 February 2018, 08 February 2018
Date of orders:	08 February 2018
Decision date:	08 February 2018
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Haesler SC DCJ
Decision:	Jury Directions
Catchwords:	Assault causing death while accused intoxicated, Summing up to jury, causation - a statutory or common law test?
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900
Cases Cited:	Andrew v R [2000] NSWCCA 310 R v Mofatt [2000] NSWCCA 174
Texts Cited:	Quitler, J, (2014) One punch laws, Mandatory Minimums and 'Alcohol-Fuelled' violence as an aggravating factor: Implications for NSW Criminal Law. International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy 3(1); 81-106
Category:	Procedural and other rulings
Parties:	Matthew Domio (Offender) Director of Public Prosecutions
Representation:	Counsel: Mr Flynn (for the offender) Mr M Clarke (for the Director of Public Prosecutions) Solicitors: Ms Quinn (for the offender) Mr D Coulton (for the Director of Public Prosecutions)
File Number(s):	2015/00154250