R v Donald Rex Wingfield Nos. SCCRM 93/450 and SCCRM 93/451 Judgment No. 4451 Number of Pages 7 Criminal Law and Procedure Judge's Summing up

The appeal in this case was against the conviction by a jury of the appellant for murder. The appellant, a 24-year-old man, had been living with his de facto wife in Whyalla and they had a four-year-old son. The appellant and his wife had agreed to care for the son of the wife's brother, an 18-month-old child named Andy. On the night of the incident, the appellant had been drinking and returned home drunk. According to the wife, the appellant beat her and subjected Andy to brutal treatment, resulting in the child's death from a closed head injury. The appellant claimed that he had no memory of the incident and denied any ill treatment of the child. The central legal issue before the court was whether the appellant had the requisite intent to constitute murder or if the verdict should be reduced to manslaughter due to the inadequate direction given to the jury regarding the degree of harm required and the impact of intoxication on intent.

The court found that the trial judge's summing up had several deficiencies. Firstly, the judge used the term "serious bodily harm" instead of "grievous bodily harm" or "really serious bodily harm," which is the correct standard for murder under South Australian law. This misdirection could have led the jury to convict based on a lesser degree of harm than required for murder. Secondly, the judge's direction on the impact of intoxication on the appellant's intent was confusing and misdirected the jury. The judge should have clarified that the issue was whether the appellant formed the requisite intent, not whether he was capable of forming it. The court concluded that these errors likely led to an unsafe verdict and that the appellant's intoxication and lack of clear intent to cause grievous bodily harm meant a properly directed jury would likely find him guilty of manslaughter rather than murder.

The court allowed the appeal against the murder conviction and substituted a verdict of manslaughter. The judges unanimously agreed that the interests of justice would be best served by this substitution, considering the appellant's lack of intent to cause grievous bodily harm and the influence of his intoxication on his actions.