R v Floyd - [2001] VSCA 161

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No. 290 of 1999

THE QUEEN
	v.
RODNEY IAN FLOYD

---

JUDGES:	ORMISTON and CALLAWAY, JJ.A. and O'BRYAN, A.J.A.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	21 August 2001
DATE OF ORDER:	21 August 2001
DATE OF REASONS:	26 September 2001
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2001] VSCA 161

---

Criminal law – Conviction – Murder – Whether trial judge was required to leave manslaughter to the jury – No evidentiary basis for doing so.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr J.D. McArdle, Q.C.	K. Robertson, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Applicant	Mr Dealehr	G.R. Campbell

ORMISTON, J.A.:

The Court dismissed this application on 21 August 2001 and in doing so stated that its reasons would be delivered later. The reasons for my agreeing in that course and in dismissing the application are now set out in the reasons for judgment of O’Bryan, A.J.A. which are published today.

CALLAWAY, J.A.:

I, too, joined in the order made by the Court on 21st August 2001 for the reasons expressed by O’Bryan, A.J.A. Far from being in the interests of justice[1], it would have been positively mischievous for the trial judge to have invited the jury to consider the possibilities canvassed in argument at the hearing of the application. The jury were correctly instructed that, unless they were satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the applicant himself shot the deceased, it was their duty to acquit him.

O'BRYAN, A.J.A.:

[1]Compare R. v. Kane [2001] VSCA 153 at [116].

The applicant was presented in the Supreme Court at Geelong in July 1999 charged with the murder of his brother Michael Floyd on a date unknown between 1 April 1997 and 31 May 1997. After trial, the jury found the applicant guilty of murder. From that verdict the applicant applied to the Court of Appeal for leave to appeal against conviction on the ground:

·the verdict is unsafe and unsatisfactory and against the weight of the evidence.

On 2 August 2001 the applicant made an application to the Court of Appeal, differently constituted from this Court pursuant to s.574 of the Crimes Act 1958, for an order that Robert Michael Crotty attend and be examined before a judge of the Trial Division. The court dismissed the application on 3 August.

On 17 August 2001 the Registrar, Court of Appeal, granted leave to amend the grounds of appeal by substituting for the unsafe and unsatisfactory ground the following two grounds:

· The failure by the trial judge to instruct the jury that the verdict of manslaughter was open to them denied the applicant the prospect of an alternative verdict which was available on the evidence thereby resulting in a miscarriage of justice.

· The failure by the trial judge to instruct the jury that an acquittal was open to them if they found that a person other than the applicant committed an act of manslaughter in circumstances where the applicant did not aid and abet denied the applicant the…

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 Floyd

Details

AGLC: R v Floyd [2001] VSCA 161
Case: [2001] VSCA 161
Decision Date: 26 September 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Floyd involved the defendant, Floyd, who was convicted of murder. The dispute centred on the trial judge’s decision not to leave the lesser charge of manslaughter to the jury for consideration. The matter was heard in the High Court of Australia, which was asked to review the correctness of the trial judge’s decision.

The legal issue at the heart of the case was whether the trial judge was obliged to leave manslaughter as a possible verdict to the jury, given the evidence presented. The court had to determine if the evidence provided a sufficient basis for the jury to consider manslaughter as an alternative to murder. The defence argued that the judge should have allowed for this possibility, while the prosecution maintained that the evidence did not support a manslaughter verdict.

The High Court found that the trial judge did not err in declining to leave manslaughter to the jury. The court reasoned that the evidence did not provide a reasonable possibility that the jury might entertain a doubt about the defendant’s guilt of murder. There was no basis in the evidence to suggest that the jury might consider the lesser charge of manslaughter. Consequently, the court held that the trial judge's decision was correct, and the conviction for murder stood.

No further orders were made by the court beyond affirming the conviction of murder. The decision underscored the importance of ensuring that any lesser charge considered by a jury must have a factual and legal basis supported by the evidence presented at trial.

Orders