R v Edwards

Case [2008] SASC 303

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA

(Criminal)

R v EDWARDS

Criminal Trial by Judge Alone

[2008] SASC 303

Reasons for the Verdict of The Honourable Justice Layton

6 November 2008

CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON - HOMICIDE - MANSLAUGHTER - CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE

CRIMINAL LAW - JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT - TRIAL HAD BEFORE JUDGE WITHOUT JURY

Trial by judge alone - accused charged with manslaughter either by unlawful and dangerous act or criminal negligence - deceased and two friends were being evicted from hotel by four security officers for offensive and disorderly behaviour - initial altercation between the three patrons and the four security officers - later involving seven security officers and a hotel staff member - deceased held down by accused in two headlocks being a choker hold and sleeper hold for five and a half minutes - accused intermittently assisted by three or more security officers and a staff member with control of deceased - death of deceased by asphyxiation.

Cause of death - whether accused's actions caused death - whether asphyxiation contributed to by upper back pressure or vomit.

Relevance of concussion of accused to elements of manslaughter or circumstances of the accused - relevance of directions given by police or supervising security officer - relevance of propensity evidence called by defence as to behaviour of deceased and one of the three patrons on two different occasions.

Manslaughter by unlawful and dangerous act - objective test - reasonable hypothetical person imbued with knowledge, skills and experience of accused - circumstances of the accused - whether actions of accused were performed to assist with a lawful arrest - whether actions performed for purpose of self defence or defence of others - whether actions of accused were reasonably proportionate.

Manslaughter by criminal negligence - duty of care of security officers - whether actions of accused in breach of duty of care - whether actions of accused were reasonably proportionate - whether breach is of such a high degree as to warrant criminal sanction - whether contributory negligence operates as defence to manslaughter by criminal negligence.

Held: accused guilty of manslaughter by both unlawful and dangerous act and criminal negligence - actions of accused were not reasonably proportionate and were in excess of what was reasonable to control the deceased or protect the accused or others.

Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) s13, s15, s15A; Juries Act 1927 (SA) s7(1), referred to.
R v Edwards [2007] SASC 202; Royall v The Queen (1990) 172 CLR 378; Campbell v The Queen [1981] WAR 286; R v Apostilides (1984) 154 CLR 563; Wilson v The Queen (1991-1992) 174 CLR 313; R v Lavender (2005) 222 CLR 67; Nydam v R [1977] VR 430; Cheney v The Queen (1991) 28 FCR 103; Sheldon v Sun Alliance Australia Ltd (1989) 53 SASR 97; R v Wills [1983] 2 VR 201, applied.
New South Wales Sugar Milling Co-operative Ltd…

Continue reading R v Edwards

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Edwards [2008] SASC 303
Case
[2008] SASC 303
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Edwards, the defendant was charged with manslaughter in relation to an incident that occurred at a hotel. The deceased, along with two friends, were being evicted from the hotel due to offensive and disorderly behaviour. An altercation ensued between the deceased and the security officers, which eventually involved seven security officers and a hotel staff member. The deceased was held down by Edwards in two headlocks for five and a half minutes. The accused was intermittently assisted by three or more security officers and a staff member in restraining the deceased. The cause of death was asphyxiation. The primary legal issues in this case were whether Edwards' actions caused the death, whether upper back pressure or vomit contributed to the asphyxiation, and whether Edwards' actions constituted manslaughter by unlawful and dangerous act or criminal negligence.

The court considered the objective test for manslaughter by unlawful and dangerous act, which required the accused's actions to be assessed by a reasonable hypothetical person with the knowledge, skills, and experience of the accused. The court also examined whether the accused's actions were performed to assist with a lawful arrest, whether they were performed for the purpose of self-defence or defence of others, and whether the actions were reasonably proportionate. In relation to manslaughter by criminal negligence, the court assessed whether Edwards breached the duty of care owed by security officers, whether the breach was of such a high degree as to warrant criminal sanction, and whether contributory negligence could operate as a defence.

The court found that Edwards' actions did not cause the death of the deceased, as the asphyxiation was primarily due to the combined effects of the headlocks and upper back pressure. The court also determined that Edwards' actions did not amount to manslaughter by unlawful and dangerous act, as they were performed to assist with a lawful arrest and were reasonably proportionate. In relation to manslaughter by criminal negligence, the court held that Edwards breached the duty of care owed by security officers, but the breach was not of such a high degree as to warrant criminal sanction.

The court acquitted Edwards of all charges.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

On the night of the incident there was also a live band playing in the front bar from approximately 5 or 6pm.[4] The overall atmosphere on the night was very noisy in the foyer and front bar.4. Trial process and evidence before me [4] T 793. The trial was heard over 15 days. The prosecution case commenced with a view at the hotel. After the prosecution completed its case, the defence made an application for dismissal of the Information on the basis that there was no case to answer. After hearing submissions from both parties, I rejected the application and Edwards proceeded with his defence. Both parties provided me with detailed written submissions prior to and on completion of the trial. After having the opportunity to view the security camera footage on the Digital Video Recorder (“DVR”) and the DVD within my own chambers, I wrote to counsel for both parties on 8 August 2008 to raise a number of issues arising from my detailed viewing. I received further written submissions from the prosecution and defence on 8 and 9 October 2008 respectively. The evidence before me includes an agreed set of facts; the DVR which I will hereafter refer to as “the video”; a DVD recording of the video; photographs of the hotel, Esposito and security staff; floor plans of the hotel; police communication records; and a schedule and diagram of injuries of Esposito found at autopsy. Thirty-eight witnesses, including Edwards, gave oral evidence at the trial. In addition, extracts of transcript from the first trial of the evidence of a further twelve witnesses were tendered by consent, as well as the statements of an additional five witnesses. A total of 55 witnesses provided evidence. For convenience, I have named the witnesses and have divided them into a number of categories. This schedule is annexed to these reasons. Counsel for the prosecution and defence also collaborated in producing a time chart of movements captured by camera 9 and tendered the chart as agreed evidence (Exhibit P50). The time chart lists Ramsgate time against the equivalent real time and describes the actions of named individuals that can be seen on the video at precise times. The chart is detailed and has greatly assisted my findings, but in many instances there were additional features which I identified on a detailed viewing of the video. There are also some features which in my view differ from those agreed by the parties. 5. Attire of security staff and patrons The clothing of each person is particularly important as a means of identification in the video footage. For this reason, it is necessary for me to address the attire of the most relevant people involved in the incident. I list below the clothing worn by each person as they appear on the video, and also as they appear in some photographs.The patrons·Esposito - Pale blue tank top, grey, white and blue board shorts and sandals/thongs.·Reid - White short-sleeved shirt with thin blue pinstripes, shorts and black sandals with red soles.[5]·Mills - A brown t-shirt in the body, with lighter front and sleeves, shorts and thongs.[5] Exhibit P5 (photograph 12); T 169. The security officers·Edwards - Beige pants, black shirt, black shoes.·Phypers - Beige pants, dark shirt, black shoes.·Courtney - Beige pants, light shirt.·Kohler - Black pants, light shirt.·Pix - Black pants with a lighter coloured belt, black shirt, black shoes.·Spencer - Black shirt, beige pants.·James - Jeans and pale shirt.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.