R v CLD

Case [2015] NSWCCA 114 27 May 2015

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal
Supreme Court

New South Wales

Case Name:	R v CLD
Medium Neutral Citation:	[2015] NSWCCA 114
Hearing Date(s):	11 March 2015
Decision Date:	27 May 2015
Before:	Meagher JA; Simpson J; Schmidt J
Decision:	1.Appeal allowed. 2.Verdict of acquittal on charge of manslaughter quashed. 3.Order a new trial on the charge of manslaughter.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – appeal under s 107(2) of the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 (NSW) against directed verdict of acquittal – manslaughter by an unlawful and dangerous act carrying with it an appreciable risk of serious injury – elements of Crown case – where death occurred as a result of the explosion of a drug manufacturing operation – where the Crown relied on the act of manufacturing pseudoephedrine by the evaporation of potentially explosive solvent in a small unventilated space with multiple potential ignition sources as the relevant act – whether Crown had to prove the actual source of ignition in order to character the relevant act as dangerous CRIMINAL LAW – appeal under s 107(2) of the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 (NSW) against directed verdict of acquittal – manslaughter by an unlawful and dangerous act carrying with it an appreciable risk of serious injury – elements of Crown case – where death occurred as a result of the explosion of a drug manufacturing operation – whether Crown had to prove the actual source of ignition to establish causation – whether Crown needed to negate all possible sources of ignition that were consistent with innocence because they broke the chain of causation – whether the trial judge erred in not leaving the question of causation to the jury
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 24, 18(2) Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 (NSW), s 107 Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW), s 24
Cases Cited:	Attorney-General’s Reference (No 1 of 1983) [1983] 2 VR 410 Burns v The Queen [2012] HCA 35; 246 CLR 334 Campbell v The Queen [1981] WAR 286 Doney v The Queen [1990] HCA 51; 171 CLR 207 Lane v R [2013] NSWCCA 317 May v O’Sullivan [1955] HCA 38; 92 CLR 654 McAuliffe v The Queen [1995] HCA 37; 183 CLR 108 Osland v The Queen [1998] HCA 75; 197 CLR 316 R v J M R (1991) 57 A Crim R 39 R v Lin (No 2) [2014] NSWSC 1710 R v LK [2010] HCA 17; 241 CLR 177 R v Pagett (1983) 76 Cr App R 279 R v PL [2009] NSWCCA 256; 199 A Crim R 199 R v PL [2012] NSWCCA 31 R v R (1989) 18 NSWLR 74 Royall v The Queen [1991] HCA 27; 172 CLR 378 Wainohu v New South Wales [2011] HCA 24; 243 CLR 181
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Regina (Crown) CLD (Respondent)
Representation:	Counsel: S Dowling SC (Crown) D Dalton SC with N Siafakas (Respondent) Solicitors: Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Crown) Matouk Joyner…

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 CLD

Details

AGLC: R v CLD [2015] NSWCCA 114
Case: [2015] NSWCCA 114
Decision Date: 27 May 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, R, appealed against a directed verdict of acquittal given by the trial judge in a manslaughter case involving the death of CLD. The death occurred as a result of the explosion of a drug manufacturing operation. The Crown's case was based on the appellant's act of manufacturing pseudoephedrine by the evaporation of a potentially explosive solvent in a small, unventilated space with multiple potential ignition sources. The trial judge directed a verdict of acquittal because the Crown had not proven the actual source of ignition, which was necessary to characterise the relevant act as dangerous.

The legal issues for the court to decide were whether the Crown had to prove the actual source of ignition in order to characterise the relevant act as dangerous, and whether the Crown needed to negate all possible sources of ignition that were consistent with innocence because they broke the chain of causation. The court considered whether the trial judge erred in not leaving the question of causation to the jury.

The court held that the Crown did not need to prove the actual source of ignition to establish causation, as it was sufficient to show that the appellant's act carried with it an appreciable risk of serious injury. The court held that the Crown needed to negate only those possible sources of ignition that were inconsistent with the Crown case, not all possible sources of ignition. The court held that the trial judge did not err in directing a verdict of acquittal because the Crown had not proven the essential elements of the offence beyond reasonable doubt. The appeal was dismissed.

Orders