R v Humbles

[2014] SASCFC 91

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA

(Court of Criminal Appeal)

R v HUMBLES

[2014] SASCFC 91

Judgment of The Court of Criminal Appeal

(The Honourable Justice Gray, The Honourable Justice Peek and The Honourable Justice Stanley)

13 August 2014

CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON - HOMICIDE - MURDER - INTENTION TO KILL OR CAUSE SERIOUS NON-FATAL INJURY

CRIMINAL LAW - GENERAL MATTERS - CRIMINAL LIABILITY AND CAPACITY - MENS REA - GENERALLY

CRIMINAL LAW - GENERAL MATTERS - CRIMINAL LIABILITY AND CAPACITY - DEFENCE MATTERS - INTOXICATION - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - MURDER

CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE - GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE  - GENERALLY

CRIMINAL LAW - SENTENCE - RELEVANT FACTORS  - NATURE AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF OFFENDER - AGE OF OFFENDER - YOUNG OFFENDER

CRIMINAL LAW - SENTENCE - RELEVANT FACTORS  - RESPONSE TO CHARGES - CONTRITION

Appeal against convictions and sentence.  The defendant was convicted following a trial before judge alone of one count of murder and two counts of attempted murder.  On 31 December 2012, the defendant, following an altercation with a friend, left a party carrying a pistol.  The defendant encountered three young men.  He fired the pistol at the three men, hitting one and causing his death.  The only issue at trial was whether at the time of the offending, the defendant was so affected by the ingestion of alcohol and drugs that the prosecution could not prove beyond reasonable doubt the requisite specific intention.  Expert evidence indicated that at the time of the offending, the defendant’s blood alcohol reading would have been in the range of 0.252 to 0.284 grams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood.  The Judge found that the circumstances led him inexorably to the conclusion that the defendant had the intention to kill all three men.  The defendant was sentenced in respect of the three offences to one sentence of life imprisonment.  A non-parole period of 23 years was fixed.

Whether the Judge misdirected himself as to the issue to which the evidence of intoxication related.  Whether the Judge, when considering the medical evidence, only addressed the question of the defendant’s capacity to form the specific intent and not whether the level of intoxication left open the rational hypothesis that the defendant had not formed the specific intent to kill.  Whether the Judge erred in failing to address the issue of manslaughter as against murder.  Whether the non-parole period of 23 years was manifestly excessive.

Held per Gray and Stanley JJ (Peek J agreeing) (dismissing the appeal against convictions):

1.  It is apparent from the Judge’s reasons that he was well aware of the relevant distinction between basic intent and specific intent, that the issue in the case concerned specific intent and that the prosecution carried the onus to prove specific intent beyond reasonable doubt.

2.   The Judge’s recounting of the effect of the medical evidence was entirely accurate.

3.  The Judge reached the conclusion that the defendant was capable of forming…