R v Bufton (Ruling No 3) - [2019] VSC 396

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT HORSHAM

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 2018 0283

THE QUEEN
v
JANICE JOY BUFTON	Accused

---

JUDGE:	TINNEY J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	21 May 2019
DATE OF RULING:	21 May 2019
DATE OF REASONS:	27 May 2019
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Bufton (Ruling No 3)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2019] VSC 396

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Murder – No case submission – Eye witness account of deliberate running down – Account inconsistent with some objective facts – Assertion that jury would not be able to rely on the account – Law applicable to no case submissions – Evidence capable of supporting a verdict of guilty of murder – No case submission rejected.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr K Armstrong	Mr J Cain, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr T Danos	Irwin & Irwin Law

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

At the close of the case for the prosecution in this trial, in which the accused currently faces a single charge of murder, Mr Danos for the accused made a submission that there was no case for the accused to answer in respect of that charge.[1] It was implicit in the submission that there would be a case to answer in respect of the alternative offence of manslaughter, which was to be left to the jury on two alternative bases, namely, manslaughter by unlawful and dangerous act, and manslaughter by criminal negligence.
[1]Section 226(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009.

Having heard the submissions made by Mr Danos in support of the application, and without calling upon Mr Armstrong for the Crown, I ruled that there was a case for the accused to answer on the charge of murder. I indicated I would publish my reasons for this decision at a later time. These are those reasons.

The evidence

The accused is charged with the murder of her partner, Colin Snooks, carried out by running him over with his own motor vehicle in the driveway of her property at Fyans Creek Road, Fyans Creek. It is not necessary for the purposes of these reasons to say much about the facts of the case. They are set out in detail in the Summary of Prosecution Opening filed in this matter, and were the subject of some consideration in my previous ruling in the case,[2] and the decision of the Court of Appeal in respect of an Interlocutory Appeal by the defence in respect of that ruling.[3]
[2]R v Bufton (Ruling No 1) [2019] VSC 232.
[3]Bufton v The Queen [2019] VSCA 96.

Suffice to say the following. Evidence on which the jury would be well entitled to rely indicated that the relationship between the accused and Mr Snooks was a very troubled one marked by verbal and physical conflict between the two of them. The accused had seemingly become increasingly frustrated and angry at the refusal of the deceased to…

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 Bufton (Ruling No 3)

Details

AGLC: R v Bufton (Ruling No 3) [2019] VSC 396
Case: [2019] VSC 396
Decision Date: 21 May 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Bufton, the respondent was charged with murder following the death of an individual in an incident where the respondent had deliberately run the deceased down. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court, which was required to determine whether there was sufficient evidence to allow the matter to proceed to trial. The central legal issue was whether the evidence was capable of supporting a verdict of guilty of murder, in light of an eye witness account that was inconsistent with some objective facts and the assertion that a jury would not be able to rely on the account.

The court considered the principles applicable to no case submissions, noting that the standard required is whether the evidence, if accepted by a jury, could support a conviction. The court held that the evidence was capable of supporting a verdict of guilty of murder. The court reasoned that while the eye witness account was inconsistent with some objective facts, it was open to the jury to accept that account, provided they considered it in light of all the evidence. The court also noted that it was not its role to assess the credibility of the evidence, but rather to determine whether there was evidence capable of supporting a verdict of guilty.

As the court found that there was evidence capable of supporting a verdict of guilty of murder, the no case submission was rejected. The matter was therefore to proceed to trial, with the respondent facing a charge of murder.

Orders