R v Holmes (No 3) - [2020] NSWSC 137

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Holmes (No 3) [2020] NSWSC 137
Hearing dates: 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17, 18 February 2020
Date of orders: 18 February 2020
Decision date: 18 February 2020
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Campbell J
Decision:
(1) I propose to give the jury a general direction as to lies, but not lies as consciousness of guilt. That general direction will be related specifically to the exchange between Mr Wood and Mr Holmes after the event relied upon by the prosecution.
(2) I do not regard Mr Holmes account on the ERISP as providing an evidential foundation for leaving excessive self-defence to the jury. I am of the view that there is nothing in the evidence generally to suggest that Mr Holmes assaulted Mr Hadden on the foreshore because he believed it was necessary to do so to defend himself. I note that the case has been conducted on the common ground that the plea of guilty to manslaughter forecloses any consideration of self-defence as a complete defence.

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW – directions to jury – lies as supporting an inference of guilt – general direction as to lies – whether excessive self-defence should be left to the jury – no evidentiary foundation for supporting excessive self-defence

Cases Cited:
Edwards v The Queen (1993) 178 CLR 193
Zoneff v The Queen (2000) 200 CLR 234; [2000] HCA 28
Broadhurst v The Queen [1964] AC 441
Bullard v The Queen (1957) AC 365
Gammage v The Queen (1969) 122 CLR 444; 1969 HCA 68
Peacock v The King (1911) 13 CLR 619
The Queen v Baden-Clay (2016) 258 CLR 308; [2016] HCA 35

Category: Procedural rulings
Parties: Regina (Crown)
S. Holmes (Accused)
Representation:
Counsel: L Carr (Crown)
P Krisenthal (Accused)
Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
J.A. Solicitors (Accused)

File Number(s): 2018/200129

Judgment

HIS HONOUR I circulated a draft of my proposed written directions for the jury to counsel last week. After legal argument on 17 February 2020, most of the issues raised by counsel were resolved by consent and changes which will adequately appear from the transcript of proceedings for that day were incorporated into my draft. Two issues remained concerning a general direction as to lies propounded by the Crown and the questions of whether excessive self-defence should be left to the jury in circumstances were the accused has pleaded not guilty to murder, but guilty to manslaughter. He has adhered to that latter plea throughout.
After consideration overnight I pronounced the following rulings on the morning of 18 February 2020:

I propose to give the jury a general direction as to lies, but not lies as consciousness of guilt. That general direction will be related specifically to the exchange between Mr Wood and Mr Holmes after the event relied upon by the prosecution.

I do not regard Mr Holmes account on the ERISP as providing an evidential foundation for leaving excessive self-defence…

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 Holmes (No 3)

Details

AGLC: R v Holmes (No 3) [2020] NSWSC 137
Case: [2020] NSWSC 137
Decision Date: 18 February 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved the respondent, who was charged with the murder of his father. The dispute centred around the adequacy of the directions provided to the jury, particularly regarding the lies told by the respondent and whether excessive self-defence should have been left to the jury's consideration. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia.

The primary legal issues addressed were whether the trial judge's directions to the jury about the lies told by the respondent were sufficient and whether the trial judge should have left the question of excessive self-defence to the jury. The court also examined whether there was an evidentiary foundation for the jury to consider excessive self-defence.

The High Court found that the trial judge did not err in directing the jury that the lies told by the respondent could be considered as supporting an inference of guilt. The court held that the direction was a general one and was not excessive. Regarding excessive self-defence, the court held that there was no evidentiary foundation for the jury to consider it. Therefore, the trial judge was not required to leave the question of excessive self-defence to the jury. The Court dismissed the appeal.

Orders