Legal Research
Cases
R v Cramp

R v Cramp

Case [1999] NSWCCA 324 30 November 1999

Manslaughter

Gross Negligence

Unlawful and Dangerous Act

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Reported Decision:
110 A Crim R 198

New South Wales

Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: R v CRAMP [1999] NSWCCA 324 revised - 10/12/99

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60723/98

HEARING DATE(S): 15 October 1999

JUDGMENT DATE:
30 November 1999

PARTIES :

REGINA v William Peter CRAMP

JUDGMENT OF: Sully J at 1; Ireland J at 1; Barr J at 2

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 97/31/0063

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Nader ADCJ QC

COUNSEL: Crown: P G Berman
Appellant: B M J Toomey QC/B H Hughes

SOLICITORS: Crown: S E O'Connor
Appellant: McClellands

CATCHWORDS: Criminal law - manslaughter - alternative bases for a finding of guilt - whether jury must be unanimous as to either basis. HELD: no; Criminal law - manslaughter alternatively by gross negligence and unlawful and dangerous act - whether these bases involved materially different issues or consequences; HELD: they did not.

ACTS CITED: Accessories and Abettors Act 1861 s 8
Crimes Act s 31A, 52A(2), 346
Crimes Act (Victoria) s 338
Traffic Act 1909 s 4E(1D)

CASES CITED:
R v Agbim [1979] Crim LR 171
R v Anthony [1965] 1 All ER 440
R v Beach (1994) 75 A Crim R 447
R v Brown (1984) 79 Cr App R 115
R v Clarke & Johnstone [1986] VR 643
R v Demirian [1989] VR 97
Du Cros v Lambourne [1907] 1 KB 40
Cain v Doyle (1946) 72 CLR 409
R v Eades (1991) 57 A Crim R 151
R v Fitzgerald [1992] Crim LR 660
R v Flynn (1985) 82 Cr App R 319
R v Gaughan [1990] Crim LR 880
R v Giannetto [1996] Cr App R 1
Giorgianni v The Queen (1984-1985) 156 CLR 473
R v Isaacs (1997) 41 NSWLR 374
KBT v The Queen (1997) 191 CLR 417
R v Levidis (1990) 51 A Crim R 216
R v Leivers & Ballinger (1998) 101 A Crim R 175
R v Mitchell [1994] Crim LR 66
R v More (1986) Cr App R 234
R v Muto & Eastey [1996] 1 VR 336
R v Petrov (1980) 2 A Crim R 101
R v Phillips (1988) 86 Cr App R
R v Price [1991] Crim LR 465
R v Serratore [1999] NSWCCA 377
R v Sourelos, Court of Criminal Appeal, 6.9.84
R v Stevens, Court of Criminal Appeal, 13.8.93
Swindall v Osborne (1864) 2 Car. & K 230
Thatcher v R (1987) 39 DLR (4th) 275
R v White (1989) 41 A Crim R 237
R v Youssef, Court of Criminal Appeal, 14.12.91

DECISION: Appeal against conviction dismissed; Leave granted to appeal agaisnt sentence; Appeal against sentence dismissed

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

60723/98

SULLY J
IRELAND J
BARR J
Tuesday, 30 November 1999

REGINA v William Peter CRAMP

JUDGMENT

1 SULLY J and IRELAND J: We have read in draft the judgment of Barr J. We agree with the orders proposed by his Honour and with his Honour’s reasons for those orders.
IN THE COURT 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 Cramp

Details

AGLC: R v Cramp [1999] NSWCCA 324
Case: [1999] NSWCCA 324
Decision Date: 30 November 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Cramp, the High Court was tasked with resolving issues concerning the verdict of manslaughter in the context of both gross negligence and an unlawful and dangerous act. The respondent, Cramp, was convicted of manslaughter, with the jury instructed to consider both alternative bases for the offence. The court was required to determine whether the jury needed to be unanimous in their decision on either basis of the manslaughter charge, and whether these two bases involved materially different issues or consequences.

The central legal issues were whether the jury had to be unanimous on either the gross negligence or the unlawful and dangerous act basis for the manslaughter charge, and if these bases involved different issues or consequences. The court examined the principles underpinning criminal verdicts, particularly focusing on the requirement for unanimity in jury decisions and the nature of alternative charges in criminal trials. The court had to decide if these alternative bases for manslaughter were sufficiently distinct to require separate unanimity or if they could be considered together in the jury's verdict.

The court ruled that the jury did not need to be unanimous on either the gross negligence or the unlawful and dangerous act basis for the manslaughter charge. It found that these two bases did not involve materially different issues or consequences, thereby permitting a single unanimous decision on the charge of manslaughter. This decision was grounded in the understanding that both bases related to the same underlying conduct and the same level of culpability, thus not necessitating separate unanimity. The court's reasoning was that the distinction between the two bases was more technical than substantive, and thus, the jury could reach a unanimous decision on the overall charge of manslaughter without needing to separately agree on the specific basis.

The court's final orders affirmed the respondent's conviction of manslaughter but clarified the requirements for jury unanimity in cases involving alternative bases for a charge. The court's decision provided clarity on the legal requirements for verdicts in cases where multiple bases for a charge are presented, ensuring that the principles of criminal justice are upheld in a manner that is both practical and consistent with legal precedent.

Orders