R v Davis - [2016] NSWSC 1362

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Davis [2016] NSWSC 1362
Hearing dates: 29 August - 22 September 2016
Decision date: 28 September 2016
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: R A Hulme J
Decision:
Guilty to each count

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – murder and attempted murder – judge alone trial – reasons for verdict – where three victims were residents in a nursing home at which the accused was an aged care worker – where each victim injected with insulin with an intention to kill – sole issue whether accused administered the injections – circumstantial case – possibility that someone other than a member of staff administered injections rejected as alternative hypothesis – evidence against accused distinguishes him from other members of staff – verdicts of guilty
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) ss 18, 27
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) ss 132, 132A
Evidence Act 1900 (NSW) s 98(1)
Cases Cited: Basto v The Queen (1954) 91 CLR 628
Lane v R [2013] NSWCCA 317
The Queen v Baden-Clay [2016] HCA 35
R v Cramp (1880) 5 QBD 307
R v Haydon (1845) 1 Cox CC 184
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Regina
Garry Steven Davis
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr L Carr (Crown)
Mr C Watson (Accused)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
Ramsland Laidler

File Number(s): 2014/370401

Judgment

Garry Steven Davis ("the accused") was arraigned before me on Monday 29 August 2016 and entered pleas of not guilty to the following three counts in the indictment:

1 On 19 October 2013, at Wallsend in the State of New South Wales, did murder Gwendolyne Fowler contrary to s 18 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW).
2 On 19 October 2013, at Wallsend in the State of New South Wales, did administer a poison to Audrey Manuel with intent to murder Audrey Manuel contrary to s 27 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW).
3 On 29 October 2013, at Wallsend in the State of New South Wales, did murder Ryan Kelly contrary to s 18 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW).

The victims of these offences were residents in the Mountview ward of the SummitCare aged care facility at Wallsend. Briefly, the allegation brought by the Crown is that the accused, who was a member of the nursing staff, injected Ms Fowler on 18 October and Ms Manuel and Mr Kelly on 19 October 2013 with insulin when there was no medical need to do so. They were each found in a hypoglycaemic state. Medical attention was promptly given. Tragically, Ms Fowler and Mr Kelly could not be saved.
This trial has been conducted without a jury. The accused applied for an order that he be tried by a judge alone. The Crown consented to the application. It also consented to leave being granted for the application to be brought out of time. I granted both leave and the application and made a trial by judge order. (See ss 132 and 132A of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW)).

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 Davis

Details

AGLC: R v Davis [2016] NSWSC 1362
Case: [2016] NSWSC 1362
Decision Date: 28 September 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Davis, the accused was an aged care worker at a nursing home where three residents died after being injected with insulin. The accused was charged with the murders and attempted murders of the residents. The trial was conducted without a jury, and the court was required to determine whether the accused was responsible for administering the fatal injections. The primary issue was the identification of the person who administered the injections and whether the accused was that person.

The court considered the evidence presented and rejected the possibility that someone other than a staff member could have administered the injections. The evidence distinguished the accused from other staff members, indicating that the accused had the opportunity and access to administer the injections. The court found that the circumstantial evidence, combined with the accused's access and opportunity, was sufficient to conclude that the accused was responsible for the injections. The court was satisfied that the accused had the intention to kill the victims and that the evidence against the accused was strong enough to exclude any reasonable doubt.

The court found the accused guilty of the murders and attempted murders of the residents. The court's reasoning was based on the circumstantial evidence, the accused's access to the victims, and the distinction between the accused and other staff members. The court rejected the defence's arguments and accepted the prosecution's case that the accused was responsible for the fatal injections. The court's decision was based on a careful consideration of the evidence and the application of the relevant legal principles.

Orders