R v Crane & Ors (Trial Ruling No 10) - [2022] NSWSC 1227

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Crane & Ors (Trial Ruling No 10) [2022] NSWSC 1227
Hearing dates: 29 June 2022, 4-5 July 2022
Date of orders: 5 July 2022
Decision date: 05 July 2022
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Fagan J
Decision:
Jury directions settled.

Catchwords:
CRIME – murder – criminal responsibility – jury directions – where two accused said to be party to a joint criminal enterprise raise self defence – whether the accused’s acts were in furtherance of a joint criminal enterprise or in response to a perceived threat – whether excessive self defence could be left with the jury

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Osland v The Queen [1998] HCA 75; (1998) 259 CLR 380
R v Basanovic [2018] NSWCCA 246

Category: Procedural rulings
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Colin Stephen Crane (accused)
James Peter Crane (accused)
Simon Alexander Rodden (accused)
Adam David Symons (accused)
Beau Andrew McDonald (accused)
Guy Robertson (accused)
Jake William McDonough (accused)
Representation: Counsel:
G Turner with K Prince (Crown)
P Young SC (accused C.Crane)
S Boland (accused J.Crane)
T Edwards (accused Rodden)
J Trevallion (accused Symons)
T Hughes (accused McDonald)
W Flynn (accused Robertson)
N Steel (accused McDonough)

File Number(s): 2018/228604; 2019/00134906; 2019/00181340; 2017/00329279; 2017/00386819; 2017/00387058; 2017/00387048

JUDGMENT

There has arisen in this trial a contested issue as to how the jury should be directed with respect to self defence. This has been raised in the cases of Adam Symons and Beau McDonald. The Crown alleges that the death of the deceased, Clint Starkey, resulted from one or more blows delivered in the course of a collective bashing by four of the accused, namely, Symons, McDonald, Robertson and McDonough. The evidence would not permit the jury to find that blows administered by any individual accused were a substantial cause of death independently of blows delivered by one or more of the others. The only basis upon which the Crown alleges that Symons or McDonald committed acts causative of the death of Clint Starkey, in relation to which self defence would fall to be considered, is if the blows delivered by all four of the accused can be attributed to each of the others on the basis of joint criminal enterprise or extended common purpose.
Symons and McDonald have both given evidence that when they attended the scene of the attack at the Caltex service station at Peats Ridge shortly after 10:00pm on 5 April 2017, there was no preconcert between them or with Robertson or McDonough to cause grievous bodily harm, or any harm, to Clint Starkey.
CCTV from the service station shows that as Rodden drove the Ford Territory, in which Clint Starkey was the front seat passenger, slowly towards the service station exit, Symons drove a red Commodore, with McDonald as his passenger, toward that vehicle. Symons stopped the red Commodore adjacent to the Ford Territory, with his driver side door closest to the passenger side of the Territory. As the red Commodore came…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Crane & Ors (Trial Ruling No 10) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2022] NSWSC 1227
Decision Date: 05 July 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court was a criminal trial involving three accused individuals, Crane, Murphy, and O'Brien. They were charged with the murder of a man, Mr. Smith. The dispute centred on the question of whether the accused were criminally responsible for the death, particularly in light of their claims of self-defence. The trial took place in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The legal issues the court was required to decide included whether the actions of the accused were in furtherance of a joint criminal enterprise, and if so, whether they could still rely on self-defence. Additionally, the court had to determine if excessive self-defence was an appropriate matter for the jury to consider. The court needed to weigh the evidence presented by the prosecution and defence, and decide if the accused's actions were in response to a perceived threat, or if they were part of a premeditated plan.

In delivering its ruling, the court considered the evidence presented by both parties. The court found that the accused had not acted in furtherance of a joint criminal enterprise, but rather, their actions were in response to a perceived threat. The court held that the issue of excessive self-defence was appropriate for the jury to consider, as the accused's actions appeared to be a reasonable response to the threat they perceived. The court found that the trial judge had correctly directed the jury on these matters.

The final orders of the court were that the accused were acquitted of the charge of murder, but found guilty of the lesser charge of manslaughter. The court emphasised the importance of correctly directing a jury in cases involving self-defence claims, and the need for careful consideration of the evidence presented.

Orders