R v Dwayne Anthony Carr (No 3) - [2011] NSWSC 771

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Dwayne Anthony CARR (No 3) [2011] NSWSC 771
Hearing dates: 13/07/2011
Decision date: 14 July 2011
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Rothman J
Decision:
The application for directed verdict is refused.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - application for directed verdict - reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence is not a basis for directed verdict - application refused
Legislation Cited: Evidence Act 1995
Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002
Cases Cited: R v Dwayne Anthony CARR (No 2) [2011] NSWSC 724
Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Dwayne Anthony Carr (Accused)
Representation: G Tabuteau (Crown)
R J Webb (Accused)
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Frontier Law Group (Accused)

File Number(s): 2010/143570

Judgment

On 13 July 2011, the Court, as presently constituted, delivered judgment on an objection to the admissibility of an electronically recorded interview with the accused conducted by the police. During the course of that judgment, the Court summarised, in short form, the nature of the proceedings and the evidence before the Court: R v Dwayne Anthony CARR (No 2) [2011] NSWSC 724. For present purposes, I adopt, as a summary of the evidence, the reasons for judgment on that application. The Court ruled inadmissible the electronic record of interview.

On 13 July 2011, following the aforesaid ruling, and after the close of the Crown case, the accused applied for a directed verdict. On 14 July 2011, I refused an application to direct the verdict and reserved reasons. The Court did comment that the decision to refuse to direct a verdict was based upon the principle that a directed verdict was not available on the basis that there is a reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence. As earlier stated, I reserved reasons. These are the reasons.

The accused, Dwayne Carr, is charged with manslaughter and recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm. The Crown case has, due to agreement between the Crown and counsel for the accused, been run relatively efficiently, but there are significant issues with the case as presented.

Essentially, the charges relate to events at the premises of the deceased on the evening and night of 25 and 26 November 2009. The deceased and a number of other persons, including the accused, were consuming alcohol and marijuana.

The Crown case essentially rests upon the proposition that the accused pushed the deceased with much force, the deceased was forced backward hitting his shoulders and then his head against a wall. The motion of the head and the force with which it hit the wall was such that the push was described as forceful, the motion of the head as a whiplash, and the sound of the head hitting the wall as loud.

When the deceased's head hit the wall, he was described as dazed, looking like he was about to faint and leaning against the wall in order to stay up. Two seconds after hitting his head, he raised his hand to the back 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 Dwayne Anthony Carr (No 3)

Details

AGLC: R v Dwayne Anthony Carr (No 3) [2011] NSWSC 771
Case: [2011] NSWSC 771
Decision Date: 14 July 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Dwayne Anthony Carr (No 3) was heard in the County Court of Victoria. The defendant, Dwayne Anthony Carr, faced charges related to criminal activity. The nature of the dispute involved an application for a directed verdict, arguing that there was a reasonable hypothesis consistent with the defendant's innocence which warranted the court to dismiss the case. The matter was brought before the court to determine whether such a hypothesis could serve as a basis for a directed verdict.

The central legal issue before the court was whether a reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence could be sufficient grounds for a directed verdict in criminal proceedings. The court had to consider whether the existence of an alternative hypothesis, which could suggest the defendant's innocence, was enough to compel the jury to acquit the defendant without proceeding to a verdict. This involved a nuanced analysis of the standard required for a directed verdict and the role of reasonable doubt in criminal trials.

The court found that a reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence, by itself, did not meet the threshold for a directed verdict. The judge ruled that such a hypothesis needed to be more than a mere possibility; it had to be one that the evidence could not reasonably be rejected. Given the evidence presented, the court concluded that the jury was entitled to consider the defendant's guilt or innocence based on the balance of probabilities. Consequently, the application for a directed verdict was refused. The case continued to be heard by the jury, who were to determine the defendant's guilt based on the evidence presented.

Orders