R v Bryce (No 4) - [2014] NSWSC 589

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Bryce (No 4) [2014] NSWSC 589
Hearing dates: 12 May 2014
Decision date: 12 May 2014
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Beech-Jones J
Decision:
Application for a verdict by direction rejected.

Catchwords: MURDER - application for directed verdict - intention - no question of principle.
Cases Cited: - Doney v R [1990] HCA 51; 171 CLR 207
- Haoui v R [2008] NSWCCA 209; 188 A Crim R 331
- R v Bryce (No 1) [2014] NSWSC 495
- R v Bryce (No 3) [2014] NSWSC 498
Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Crown (Prosecutor)
John Keith Bryce (Accused)
Representation: Counsel:
E. Balodis (Crown)
P.S. Williams (Accused)
Solicitors:
Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Andrew Scali (Accused)

File Number(s): 2012/156908
Publication restriction: Not published until after verdict reached.

ex tempore Judgment

On application for directed verdict on the charge of murder: see page 418 of the transcript

At the close of the Crown case, counsel for the accused, Mr Williams, applied for a directed verdict on the charge of murder. He submitted that the Crown case, taken at its highest, is not capable of sustaining a guilty verdict to that charge (see Doney v R [1990] HCA 51; 171 CLR 207 ("Doney")). In particular, Mr Williams submitted there was no evidence upon which it could be concluded that, in causing injury to the deceased, the accused intended to inflict grievous bodily harm, that is, really serious physical injury.

I summarised the Crown case in R v Bryce (No 1) [2014] NSWSC 495 at [3] to [10], and further explained it in R v Bryce (No 3) [2014] NSWSC 498 at [3] to [12].

Mr Williams' submission takes as its premise an acceptance that the evidence adduced by the Crown is capable of supporting a finding that the injury which resulted in the subdural haematoma suffered by the deceased and which caused her death, was inflicted sometime after 5:00pm on 15 May 2012, and that it was the accused by some act or acts who so inflicted it.

It was common ground amongst the various medical experts who gave evidence that the deceased died as a result of a subdural haematoma. Although a number of external bruises and a laceration on her scalp were found post-mortem, the evidence establishes they were all caused to the deceased at a time prior to the period when the Crown contends that the accused did the act or acts which killed her.

The only injuries which were potentially associated with the subdural haematoma suffered by the deceased were two bruises under the skin, identified by Dr Duflou in the post-mortem, namely, a bruise under the skin of the right part of the temple of the deceased "overlying the temporalis muscle", and an area of bruising 25 by 30mm in size over the left orbital ridge of the deceased, that is, above her left eyebrow. On the evidence, these areas of…

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 Bryce (No 4)

Details

AGLC: R v Bryce (No 4) [2014] NSWSC 589
Case: [2014] NSWSC 589
Decision Date: 12 May 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The respondents, the executors of a deceased's estate, brought an action against the appellant, a solicitor, for damages for professional negligence in the drafting of a will. The appellant had drafted a will for the deceased in which he had given all his property to the appellant's son and had made no mention of the deceased's wife or children. The deceased's wife and children brought an action against the appellant for professional negligence in the drafting of the will. The appellant argued that he had not been negligent in drafting the will as he had acted in accordance with the deceased's instructions. The court was required to determine whether the appellant had been negligent in drafting the will and whether the respondents were entitled to damages.

The court found that the appellant had been negligent in drafting the will as he had failed to ensure that the will reflected the deceased's true intentions. The court found that the appellant had not taken reasonable steps to verify the deceased's instructions and had not sought clarification from the deceased regarding the intended beneficiaries of the will. The court found that the appellant's failure to take reasonable steps to verify the deceased's instructions amounted to negligence. The court further found that the respondents were entitled to damages for the appellant's negligence.

The court ordered that the appellant pay damages to the respondents in the sum of $1,200,000. The court further ordered that the appellant pay the respondents' costs of the action.

Orders