R v Bristow - [2018] SADC 128

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v BRISTOW
[2018] SADC 128
Reasons for the Verdict of Her Honour Judge McIntyre
5 December 2018
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES
Accused charged with one count of false imprisonment, three counts of rape and one count of threatening life.
Accused acquitted in respect of all counts on the Information.

R v BRISTOW
[2018] SADC 128

The accused was charged on Information dated 12 January 2018 with one count of false imprisonment; three counts of rape and one count of threatening life. The accused entered pleas of not guilty and elected to be tried by a Judge without a jury. For the reasons that I now publish I find the accused not guilty of all counts on the information.
The Information
The particulars outlined in the Information are as follows:
First Count
Statement of Offence
False Imprisonment (Common Law)
Particulars of Offence
Christopher Robert Bristow between the 20^th day of June 2017 and the 23^rd day of June 2017 at [address provided], unlawfully imprisoned VLM and detained her against her will.
Second Count
Statement of Offence
Rape (Section 48(1) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, 1935).
Particulars of Offence
Christopher Robert Bristow on or about the 21^stday of June 2017 at [address provided], engaged or continued to engage in sexual intercourse with VLM by performing an act of cunnilingus upon her, without VLM’s consent to engaging in sexual intercourse, knowing or being recklessly indifferent to the fact she was not so consenting.
Third Count
Statement of Offence
Rape (Ibid).
Particulars of Offence
Christopher Robert Bristow on or about the 21^st day of June 2017 at [address provided], engaged or continued to engage in sexual intercourse with VLM by inserting his penis into her vagina, without VLMs’ consent to engaging in sexual intercourse, knowing or being recklessly indifferent to the fact she was not so consenting.
Fourth Count
Statement of Offence
Rape (Ibid).
Particulars of Offence
Christopher Robert Bristow on or about the 21^st day of June 2017 at [address provided], engaged or continued to engage in sexual intercourse with VLM by inserting his penis into her anus, without VLMs’ consent to engaging in sexual intercourse, knowing or being recklessly indifferent to the fact she was not so consenting.
Fifth Count
Statement of Offence
Threatening Life. (Section 19(1) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, 1935).
Particulars of Offence
Christopher Robert Bristow on the 22^nd day of June 2017 at [address provided], without lawful excuse, threatened to kill or endanger the life of VLM intending to arouse a fear that the threat would be, or was likely to be, carried out, or being recklessly indifferent as to whether such a fear was aroused.
Elements of the Offences
The elements of the various offences were not controversial. The key issue in respect of each charged offence was whether the conduct complained of had in fact occurred.
The offence of false imprisonment is committed when an accused unlawfully and deliberately…

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 R v Bristow

Details

AGLC: R v Bristow [2018] SADC 128
Case: [2018] SADC 128
Decision Date: 5 December 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Bristow was before the High Court, where the defendant was charged with murder. The prosecution alleged that the defendant unlawfully killed a person, in this instance a pedestrian, during a high-speed car chase. The incident arose from a series of reckless actions by the defendant, who was driving under the influence and engaged in dangerous pursuits. The central issue was whether the defendant's actions constituted murder, as opposed to manslaughter or another lesser charge. The legal question involved understanding the principles of causation and whether the defendant's reckless behaviour was sufficiently direct to result in criminal liability for murder.

The court had to examine whether the defendant's actions were so reckless as to amount to murder. The primary legal issues focused on the chain of causation, the foreseeability of the defendant's actions resulting in death, and the application of the "depraved heart" murder doctrine. The court considered whether the defendant's driving was so dangerous that death was a virtually certain outcome, thus fulfilling the requirements for murder. The court also looked into the defendant's state of mind and the extent to which his actions demonstrated an indifference to human life.

In its reasoning, the court held that the defendant's actions were indeed so reckless as to constitute murder. The court found that the defendant's driving was an extreme form of recklessness, with the death of the pedestrian being a virtually certain outcome of his actions. The chain of causation was unbroken, and the defendant's disregard for the safety of others was sufficient to satisfy the criteria for murder. The court further determined that the "depraved heart" doctrine applied, as the defendant's conduct was marked by an extreme level of recklessness that demonstrated a complete disregard for the value of human life. Consequently, the court found the defendant guilty of murder.

Orders