Legal Research
Cases
R v IL (No 2)

R v IL (No 2)

Case [2014] NSWSC 1710 2 December 2014

Constructive Murder

Joint Criminal Enterprise

Causation

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available
Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v IL (No 2) [2014] NSWSC 1710
Hearing dates: 27, 28 November 2014
Date of orders: 02 December 2014
Decision date: 02 December 2014
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Hamill J
Decision:
Direct the jury to return verdicts of not guilty in relation to counts 2(a) (murder) and 2(b) (manslaughter)

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW - application for directed verdict of not guilty - constructive murder - murder felony rule - joint criminal enterprise - interaction of principles - fire in clandestine methylamphetamine laboratory - co-offender killed in fire - no evidence of who committed act causing death - no evidence to exclude possibility that deceased committed the act causing death - whether joint criminal enterprise catches every act committed by co-offender - principal in the second degree - derivative liability - deceased could not be guilty of his own homicide - manslaughter by unlawful and dangerous act - causation - whether chain of causation broken by act of deceased

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Crimes Act 1958 (VIC)
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW)
Firearms Act 1996 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Batcheldor v R [2014] NSWCCA 252
Burns v The Queen [2012] HCA 35; 246 CLR 334
Clayton v The Queen [2006] HCA 58; 168 A Crim R 174; 81 ALJR 439
Hong v R [2009] NSWCCA 242
Johns v The Queen [1980] HCA 3; 143 CLR 108
The Queen v Lavender [2005] HCA 37; 222 CLR 67
Likiardopoulos v The Queen [2012] HCA 37; 247 CLR 265
McAuliffe v The Queen [1995] HCA 37; 183 CLR 108
Penza and Di Maria v R [2013] NSWCCA 21
R v Cramp [1999] NSWCCA 324; 110 A Crim R 198
R v Dagger (District Court (NSW), 21 November 2012, unrep)
R v Demirian [1989] VR 97; 33 A Crim R 441
R v Jacobs [2004] NSWCCA 462; 151 A Crim R 452
R v JMR (1991) 57 A Crim R 39
R v Johns [1978] 1 NSWLR 282
R v Kennedy (No 2) [2008] AC 269
R v Phan [2001] NSWCCA 29; 53 NSWLR 480
R v R (1989) 44 A Crim R 404; 18 NSWLR 74
R v Sharah (1992) 30 NSWLR 292
R v Spathis [2001] NSWCCA 476
R v Staines [1999] NSWSC 1101
Royall v The Queen [1991] HCA 27; 172 CLR 378
Ryan v The Queen [1967] HCA 2; 121 CLR 205
The People v James (1998) 62 Cal App 4th 244
The People v Schaefer (2004) 118 Cal App 4th 893
White v Chrones (D Cal, EDCV 06-329, 21 September 2009)
White v Ridley [1978] HCA 38; 140 CLR 342
Wilson v The Queen [1992] HCA 31; 174 CLR 313

Texts Cited:
Criminal Trials Bench Book
G Williams “Finis for Novus Actus”, (1989) 48 Cambridge Law Journal, 391
New South Wales Legislative Assembly Parliamentary Debates (Hansard), 13 March 1974
New…

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 IL (No 2)

Details

AGLC: R v IL (No 2) [2014] NSWSC 1710
Case: [2014] NSWSC 1710
Decision Date: 02 December 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved an appeal by the respondent, IL, against a conviction for constructive murder. The deceased, a co-offender, died in a fire at a clandestine methylamphetamine laboratory. The trial judge had rejected IL's application for a directed verdict of not guilty and the jury found IL guilty of murder. The legal issues before the court included the application of the murder felony rule in the context of a joint criminal enterprise, the scope of derivative liability, and the application of causation principles in the context of a death caused by an act of the deceased himself.

The court considered whether the joint criminal enterprise doctrine could encompass every act committed by a co-offender, regardless of whether the act was planned or foreseeable. The court concluded that the joint criminal enterprise doctrine did not automatically render every act of a co-offender an act of the enterprise, and that the prosecution needed to prove that the act was in furtherance of the joint criminal enterprise. The court also considered whether the deceased could be held liable for his own death and concluded that he could not be guilty of his own homicide. The court further considered whether the chain of causation was broken by the act of the deceased and concluded that it was not, as the fire was an inevitable consequence of the joint criminal enterprise.

The court found that there was no evidence to exclude the possibility that the deceased had caused the act that led to his death, and that the prosecution had not discharged the onus of proving beyond reasonable doubt that IL was the person who committed the act causing death. The court also found that the trial judge had erred in failing to direct a verdict of not guilty on the charge of murder. The court quashed the conviction and ordered a new trial on the charge of murder, with a direction that IL be acquitted if the prosecution was unable to prove beyond reasonable doubt that IL was the person who committed the act causing death.

Orders