Moussa v The Queen - [2017] NSWCCA 237

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available
Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Moussa v R [2017] NSWCCA 237
Hearing dates: 24 October 2016
Date of orders: 04 October 2017
Decision date: 04 October 2017
Before: Ward JA at [1];
Fagan J at [59];
N Adams J at [69]
Decision:
(1) Leave is granted to the appellant to bring ground 2(a) of the amended grounds of appeal.
(2) Appeal allowed.
(3) Quash the appellant’s conviction for manslaughter contrary to s 18(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1900.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – appeal – joint criminal enterprise – manslaughter – where deceased’s act causes own death – s 18 Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) does not encompass self-killing – conviction quashed
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 18(1)(b), 195(1A)(b),
Criminal Appeal Rules (NSW), r 4
Cases Cited: ARS v R [2011] NSWCCA 266
CLD v R [2015] NSWCCA 114
IL v R [2016] NSWCCA 51
IL v R [2017] HCA 27
IL v The Queen [2017] HCATrans 65
Osland v The Queen (1998) 197 CLR 316; [1998] HCA 75
Woolcock Street Investments Pty Ltd v CDG Pty Ltd (2004) 216 CLR 515; [2004] HCA 16
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Christopher Moussa (Appellant)
Regina (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
Ms A Francis with Ms S Palaniappan (Appellant)
Ms S Dowling SC (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Legal Aid NSW (Appellant)
Director or Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2012/00185481
Publication restriction: Nil
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court of New South Wales

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Date of Decision:

01 October 2014

Before:

Colefax SC DCJ

File Number(s):

2012/185481

Judgment

WARD JA: On 1 October 2014, following a trial in the District Court before Colefax SC DCJ and a jury of twelve, the appellant (Christopher Moussa) was convicted of one count of intentionally damaging a property at Oatlands by means of fire while in the company of Paul Ribbons (contrary to s 195(1A)(b) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)) and one count of manslaughter (contrary to s 18(1)(b) of that Act) by causing the death of Paul Ribbons. He had pleaded not guilty to both counts.
The appellant, who sustained serious injuries in the incident and is now severely disabled, was sentenced on 23 January 2015 to a sentence of 2 years’ imprisonment for each count, to be served totally concurrently, which the sentencing judge directed be wholly suspended. He appealed solely from his conviction for manslaughter. At the hearing of the appeal, the appellant did not press all of his grounds of appeal as originally framed and sought leave to amend ground 1 of the grounds of appeal, having raised for the first time in submissions before this Court that his conviction for manslaughter was untenable because, in effect, the offence of which the appellant was convicted was not the act of the deceased killing another person but the act of the deceased killing himself. Leave was granted for that purpose.
The grounds of appeal that were ultimately pressed on the hearing…

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 Moussa v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Moussa v The Queen [2017] NSWCCA 237
Case: [2017] NSWCCA 237
Decision Date: 04 October 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the appeal of Moussa v The Queen, the High Court of Australia was asked to determine the scope of criminal liability in cases involving a joint criminal enterprise. The appellant, Moussa, was convicted of manslaughter for his role in a joint enterprise that resulted in the death of another person. The deceased's actions, however, directly caused his own death. Moussa appealed his conviction, arguing that the provisions of s 18 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), which deals with manslaughter, did not encompass situations where the deceased caused their own death. The central legal issue was whether Moussa could be held criminally liable for the death of the deceased when the deceased's own actions were the immediate cause of death.

The High Court considered the statutory interpretation of s 18 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) and the principles of joint criminal enterprise. The Court held that the statute did not include circumstances where the deceased's actions were the direct cause of their own death. As the deceased's actions were the immediate cause of death, Moussa could not be held liable for manslaughter under the statute. The Court reasoned that the statute required a causal link between the actions of the accused and the death of the deceased, which was not present in this case. Consequently, the conviction was quashed, and the appeal was allowed.

The High Court's decision in Moussa v The Queen clarifies the scope of s 18 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) in relation to joint criminal enterprises and self-inflicted deaths. The Court's reasoning emphasizes the importance of a direct causal link between the actions of the accused and the death of the deceased for a manslaughter conviction under the statute. This decision provides guidance for future cases involving similar circumstances and highlights the need for careful consideration of statutory interpretation in criminal cases.

Orders