(1) On the charge that, on 3 January 2023, at Ballina in the State of New South Wales, the accused, Robert Karl Huber, did murder Lindy Lucena contrary to s 18(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), the Court finds the accused not guilty.
(2) On the charge that, on 3 January 2023, at Ballina in the State of New South Wales, the accused, Robert Karl Huber, did unlawfully kill Lindy Lucena, contrary to s 18(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), the Court finds the said Robert Karl Huber guilty as charged.
(3) The Court will list, after consultation with the parties, a sentencing hearing in relation to Counts 1 and 3 on the indictment.
Catchwords:
CRIME — murder — plea of not guilty — elements of murder — causation — circumstantial evidence — inferences — where medical mechanism of death is not straightforward — where experts disagree on cause of death — whether assault by accused caused death — cause of death versus mechanism of death — methadone overdose — commotio medullaris — positional asphyxiation — axonal injury — domestic violence — requisite intention not found — verdict of not guilty to murder but guilty of manslaughter
CRIME — manslaughter — alternative to murder — unlawful killing — plea of not guilty — elements of manslaughter — verdict of guilty
“Methadone and drug addicts”, Karen Worm, Anni Steentoft, and Birgitte Kringsholm, International Journal of Legal Medicine (1993) 106
Randal C Baselt, “Disposition of Toxic Drugs and Chemicals in Man”, 12th ed, Biomedical Publications, 1 June 2020
Category:
Principal judgment
Parties:
Rex (Crown) Robert Karl Huber (Accused)
Representation:
Counsel: Ms S Oliver (Crown) Mr J Watts (Accused)
Solicitors: Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown) Legal Aid New South Wales (Accused)
File Number(s):
2023/00003477
Publication restriction:
N/A
JUDGMENT
HIS HONOUR: On 23 September 2024, the Director of Public Prosecutions charged Robert Karl Huber (hereinafter the accused) on indictment with three offences.…
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 Huber
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Huber [2025] NSWSC 714
Case
[2025] NSWSC 714
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appellant, Huber, was charged with murder, manslaughter, and assault occasioning actual bodily harm arising from a domestic dispute. The case was heard by the NSW Supreme Court. Huber was found not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter and assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The primary legal issue was whether the assault by the appellant caused the death of the victim and, if so, whether the requisite intention for murder was present. The court considered whether the assault caused the death, examining the medical evidence and expert opinions on the cause of death. The experts disagreed on whether the death was caused by a methadone overdose, commotio medullaris, positional asphyxiation, or axonal injury. The court concluded that while the assault did cause the death, there was no evidence of the requisite intention for murder. Consequently, Huber was found guilty of manslaughter, an unlawful killing without the necessary intent for murder.
The court also addressed whether the assault constituted actual bodily harm, which Huber pleaded guilty to. The evidence demonstrated that the assault caused harm to the victim, fulfilling the criteria for the offence. The final order was a verdict of not guilty for murder, guilty for manslaughter, and guilty for assault occasioning actual bodily harm, with sentencing to be determined in a subsequent proceeding.