Legal Research
Cases
R v Franklin

R v Franklin

Case [2001] VSCA 79 28 May 2001

Criminal Liability

Complicity

Causation

Admissibility of Evidence

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No. 243 of 1998

THE QUEEN
	v.
LANCE EDWARD FRANKLIN

---

JUDGES:	PHILLIPS, C.J., BROOKING and ORMISTON, JJ.A.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	5, 6 and 7 February 2001
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	28 May 2001
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2001] VSCA 79

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Murder – Complicity – Attack on deceased over some hours by a group of people including applicant – Jury not charged on bases of acting in concert, aiding and abetting or counselling and procuring – Jury charged on basis that applicant responsible for the acts and those of persons “under his control” – Whether such accessorial liability available in law – Whether applicant’s acts caused death – Lies and consciousness of guilt – Failure to leave alternative of manslaughter by criminal negligence as well as by unlawful and dangerous act – Admissibility of evidence of covertly recorded conversations in gaol.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr C.G. Hillman	Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Applicant	Mr M. Croucher	Tonkin & Associates

PHILLIPS, C.J.:

In this matter I have had the advantage of reading in draft form the judgment of Brooking, J.A. with whose conclusions I concur. I have also had the advantage of reading in draft form the judgment of Ormiston, J.A. I would adopt his Honour’s account of the facts set out therein. Save that I affirm and adhere to what Brooking, J.A. and I said in R. v. Camilleri[1] in the matter of consciousness of guilt, I concur in his Honour’s conclusions touching grounds 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 and the ultimate disposition of this application.
[1][2001] V.S.C.A. 14

In his charge to the jury in the applicant’s trial, the learned judge, addressing the matter of complicity, gave the jurors the following directions.

“You will recall that right at the outset of this trial I instructed you that there must be an action of the accused which is the cause of the death of the deceased. I indicated to you that that does not mean that every action which is undertaken must be personally performed by the accused.
In the present case, the Crown argues that … the accused man … enlisted a number of other persons … to assist him in the systematic beating and humiliation of the deceased over a number of hours. He was, the Crown contends, beyond reasonable doubt, at all stages in control of the whole operation, whether or not he personally struck all of the blows or indeed was even present for all of the time during which assaults took place. In that situation the Crown says that his actions caused the death of the deceased.
Mr Brustman has submitted that you cannot be satisfied about the presence of that link. He has submitted that in a situation in which the accused was simply not present for very substantial periods of time, when, on the evidence of Wade Russell in particular, it is clear…

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 Franklin

Details

AGLC: R v Franklin [2001] VSCA 79
Case: [2001] VSCA 79
Decision Date: 28 May 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Franklin involved the applicant who was part of a group that attacked the deceased over several hours. The dispute centred on the applicant's level of involvement and responsibility for the fatal assault, and whether the jury was correctly directed on the legal principles applicable to such cases. The High Court of Australia was called upon to determine the appropriate legal framework for assessing the applicant's liability and whether the jury was properly guided on the various potential bases for his involvement.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the doctrine of accessorial liability, as applied in the charge, was valid under Australian law and if the applicant's actions directly caused the death of the deceased. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the jury should have been left with the option of convicting the applicant of manslaughter by criminal negligence as well as manslaughter by an unlawful and dangerous act. Another significant issue was the admissibility of evidence from covertly recorded conversations made while the applicant was in gaol.

The court found that the charge to the jury on accessorial liability was flawed, as it did not align with established legal principles. The court held that the applicant could not be held responsible for the acts of others unless there was a specific relationship of control or command. The court also ruled that the jury should have been left with the option of convicting the applicant of manslaughter by criminal negligence, as there was evidence to support this lesser charge. Regarding the admissibility of the gaol conversations, the court held that the evidence was properly admitted as it was relevant to the applicant's state of mind and consciousness of guilt.

The final orders of the court were that the applicant's conviction for murder was quashed, and the matter was remitted to the lower court for a new trial on the appropriate charges of manslaughter. The court emphasised the importance of correctly instructing juries on legal principles and ensuring that all available charges are considered to ensure a fair trial.

Orders