R v Byrnes - [2019] NSWSC 615

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Byrnes [2019] NSWSC 615
Hearing dates: 15 – 18, 22 – 26, 29 – 31 October 2018, 1, 5 – 6 November 2018
Date of orders: 06 November 2018
Decision date: 06 November 2018
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Common Law - Criminal
Decision:
Rothman J

Catchwords: CRIME – Directed verdict – need for accessory to murder or manslaughter to be aware of death of victim – verdict directed – no evidence that any act of the accused assisted the principal offender at a time when accused was aware of the death of victim, or even likely death
Legislation Cited: Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), s 162
Cases Cited: Carr v Baker (1936) 36 SR (NSW) 301
Director of Public Prosecutions v R (1991) 57 A Crim R 39
Doney v R (1990) 171 CLR 207; [1990] HCA 51
Fabre v Arenales (1992) 27 NSWLR 437
Gall v R; Gall v R [2015] NSWCCA 69
Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298; [1959] HCA 8
Jones v Great Western Railway Co (1931) 144 LT 194
Jones v Sutherland Shire Council [1979] 2 NSWLR 206
Martin v Osborne (1936) 55 CLR 367; [1936] HCA 23
R v Dawson [1961] VR 773
R v Hansill (1849) 3 Cox C.C. 597
R v Levy (1912) 1 KB 158
R v Maloney (1901) 1 SR (NSW) 77
R v R (1989) 18 NSWLR 74
R v Stone [1981] VR 737
R v Young; R v Phipps (Court of Criminal Appeal (NSW), 31 October 1995, unrep)
Texts Cited: Peter Gillies, Criminal Law (2nd ed, 1990, Law Book Co.)
Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Bradley James Byrnes (Accused)
Representation:
Counsel:
P Barrett (Crown)
H White (Accused)
Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
PW & Associates (Accused)

File Number(s): 2016/00212466

EX TEMPORE Judgment

HIS HONOUR: Before the Court is an accused, Mr Byrnes, who is charged with accessory after the fact to murder. The principal offender is said to have been Mr Rossi-Murray, who, for present purposes, is unconcerned with that with which the Court is now required to deal.
The Crown case has closed and all of the evidence adduced on behalf of the Crown has concluded.
Counsel for Mr Byrnes, has applied for a directed verdict on the accessory after the fact to murder. The principles in relation to a directed verdict have been adumbrated on a number of occasions and discussed by much authority. The major cases include Doney v R (1990) 171 CLR 207; [1990] HCA 51; Director of Public Prosecutions v R (1991) 57 A Crim R 39 (“JMR”), to which I will turn. The principles upon which a Court may direct a verdict are strict and confined, but the test, once satisfied, is not discretionary.
It is the duty of a trial Judge to direct a verdict of acquittal, if the evidence could not sustain a guilty verdict or,…

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 Byrnes

Details

AGLC: R v Byrnes [2019] NSWSC 615
Case: [2019] NSWSC 615
Decision Date: 06 November 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Byrnes, the defendant stood accused of being an accessory to the crime of manslaughter. The dispute before the court was whether the defendant had been aware of the death of the victim at the time that any actions on his part could be considered to have assisted the principal offender. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The legal issue before the court was to determine the point at which an accessory to a crime becomes liable for the consequences of the act, specifically whether it was necessary for the accessory to be aware of the death of the victim at the time when their actions assisted the principal offender. The court was also required to consider whether the prosecution had provided sufficient evidence to establish the defendant's awareness of the death of the victim and the timing of any actions on his part that could be considered to have assisted the principal offender.

The court found that there was no evidence to demonstrate that the defendant was aware of the death of the victim at the time that any actions on his part could be considered to have assisted the principal offender. Given the absence of such evidence, the court directed a verdict of not guilty. The reasoning of the court was that, for the defendant to be held liable as an accessory, it was necessary for him to be aware of the death of the victim at the time that his actions assisted the principal offender. Without such evidence, the court could not find the defendant guilty.

As a result of the court's reasoning and determination, the defendant was acquitted of all charges. The court's direction of a verdict of not guilty concluded the matter, and no further orders were made.

Orders