Legal Research
Cases
R v Close

R v Close

Case [2020] NSWSC 1026 6 August 2020

Criminal Liability

Mens Rea & Intention

Self-Induced Intoxication

Expert Evidence

Causation

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Close [2020] NSWSC 1026
Hearing dates: 13 – 23 July 2020
Decision date: 06 August 2020
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Button J
Decision:
Verdict of guilty of murder

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW – murder – trial by judge alone – plea of not guilty to murder but guilty of manslaughter – whether intention to kill or intention to inflict grievous bodily harm established beyond reasonable doubt – self-induced intoxication – expert evidence from three witnesses – consideration of large number of established circumstantial facts – rejection of alternative hypotheses – intention to inflict grievous bodily harm established to the criminal standard

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Luke Jordan Close (Accused)
Representation:
Counsel:
K Ratcliffe (Crown)
M Austin (Accused)
Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Aboriginal Legal Service (Accused)

File Number(s): 2018/62445

Judgment

Introduction

On 13 July 2020, Mr Luke Jordan Close (the accused) was arraigned on an indictment before me in the Supreme Court at Nowra. No jury panel was present, because an order that the trial proceed by judge alone was extant.
The indictment contained a single count, averring that, on or about 23 February 2018 at Nowra, the accused did murder Mr Garry James Welsh (the deceased). The accused entered a plea of not guilty to murder but guilty of manslaughter; when he did so, he was represented by solicitor and counsel.
The Crown did not accept that plea in full satisfaction of the indictment, with the result that a trial by judge alone on the count of murder proceeded until 23 July 2020. The accused remained represented as described above throughout the entirety of his trial. On that latter occasion, I retired to consider my verdict, having made it clear that other judicial commitments would mean that its delivery would be delayed for a time.

Issues in the trial

In his opening as to the issues expected to arise in the trial, and subsequently, defence counsel explained the following.
First, in accordance with his plea, there would be no dispute about the fact that the accused had unlawfully killed the deceased in circumstances amounting to manslaughter, and I could be comfortably satisfied about that beyond reasonable doubt.
Secondly, the only disputed element with regard to murder would be the mental element; that is, whether the Crown could prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that, at the time of the homicide, the accused intended to cause at least grievous bodily harm (I shall subsequently refer to that as “really serious physical injury”).
Thirdly, a central component of the question of whether there is a reasonable doubt about that mental element would be close consideration of the intoxication of the accused at the time he performed the physical elements of the homicide.
Fourthly, no inherent psychiatric or intellectual condition suffered by the accused at the time would play any role in that assessment.
In light of those being identified as the real issues in the trial,…

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 Close

Details

AGLC: R v Close [2020] NSWSC 1026
Case: [2020] NSWSC 1026
Decision Date: 06 August 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Close involved the defendant, Close, who was charged with murder. The defendant pleaded not guilty to murder but admitted to the lesser charge of manslaughter. The case was heard by a judge sitting alone. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the prosecution had established, beyond reasonable doubt, that the defendant either intended to kill or intended to inflict grievous bodily harm on the victim. This determination was complicated by the defendant's state of self-induced intoxication at the time of the offence. The court had to consider expert evidence from three witnesses, along with a significant number of established circumstantial facts. The judge evaluated these elements to ascertain whether the defendant's actions could be attributed to an intention to inflict grievous bodily harm, as required by the criminal standard of proof.

The court meticulously examined the evidence presented, including the expert testimonies and the circumstantial facts. The analysis involved rejecting alternative hypotheses that did not align with the established facts. The judge found that the intention to inflict grievous bodily harm was sufficiently established to meet the criminal standard of proof. The court concluded that the prosecution had successfully demonstrated that the defendant's actions were driven by an intention to cause significant harm, thereby establishing the necessary mens rea for the lesser charge of manslaughter. The judge's reasoning was grounded in a comprehensive evaluation of the evidence, ensuring that the verdict was supported by a robust application of the law.

Ultimately, the court found in favour of the prosecution on the lesser charge of manslaughter. The defendant's plea of not guilty to murder was rejected, but the guilty plea to manslaughter was accepted. This outcome was based on the clear evidence of the defendant's intent to inflict grievous bodily harm, which met the requisite standard of proof. The court's decision was detailed and methodical, reflecting a thorough consideration of the complex issues presented by the case.

Orders