R v Kane

Case [2001] VSCA 153 7 September 2001

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No. 325 of 1999

THE QUEEN
	v.
GABRIELLE MARIE KANE

---

JUDGES:	ORMISTON, CALLAWAY and BATT, JJ.A.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	22-24 May 2001
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	7 September 2001
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2001] VSCA 153

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Intentionally causing serious injury – Whether alternative verdict of intentionally causing injury should have been left to jury having regard to course of trial and evidence against applicant – Whether principles in Gilbert v. The Queen (2000) 201 C.L.R. 414 applicable to charges other than of homicide – Whether evidence to support conviction – Whether directions to jury sufficiently clear as to applicant’s complicity in offence – Sentencing – Claim of disparity.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Miss M. Sexton	Ms Kay Robertson, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Applicant	Mr M. Croucher	Clarebrough Pica

ORMISTON, J.A.:

In this application, the issues raised by ground 4 have caused me serious concern. For the present it is sufficient to state that I gratefully accept the general statement of facts by Callaway, J.A. and his description of the issues raised by the other three grounds, as well as the conclusions which he reaches on them, so far as necessary for his decision.

Ground 4: Whether judge obliged to leave all alternative charges to the jury

What is here raised is the asserted obligation of trial judges to leave to juries every possible alternative verdict which may be open to them on the evidence in any trial on presentment. In the present case there was an “alternative” count left to the jury, that of recklessly causing serious injury, but it is now suggested that the jury should have been directed also as to the possibility of convicting on the two alternative charges under s.18 of the Crimes Act 1958 of intentionally causing injury and recklessly causing injury.[1] No complaint was made by counsel then appearing, nor was any mention made by him of the issue. Interestingly none of the counsel appearing for the other three accused involved in the vicious assault on the victim made any mention of the issue at any stage.
[1]No mention was made on this application of the possibility of the jury’s convicting on an alternative charge of attempting to cause serious injury intentionally, but on one view of the facts that would have been open, i.e. if the applicant was held responsible only for her attempt to cause injury by banging the victim’s head against the door handles.

For present purposes I accept that so far as the verdicts of murder and manslaughter are concerned, courts in this state are bound by High Court authority and recent authority of this Court to leave to the jury the alternative verdict of manslaughter on any murder trial where the facts leave such a verdict open. One can understand why the courts have wished to leave open to the jury the possibility of acquitting on a count of murder where…

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 Kane

Details

AGLC: R v Kane [2001] VSCA 153
Case: [2001] VSCA 153
Decision Date: 7 September 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Kane, the defendant was convicted of intentionally causing serious injury to another person. The appeal to the court involved multiple legal questions, including whether the alternative verdict of intentionally causing injury should have been left to the jury, whether the principles outlined in Gilbert v The Queen (2000) 201 C.L.R. 414 could be applied to charges other than homicide, and whether the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction. Additionally, the court considered whether the jury directions were sufficiently clear regarding the applicant’s involvement in the offence, and addressed a claim of sentencing disparity.

The legal issues presented required the court to scrutinise the trial proceedings and the evidence presented. The primary concern was whether the jury should have been offered the alternative verdict of intentionally causing injury, in light of the trial's progression and the strength of the evidence against the applicant. The court also had to determine whether the principles from the Gilbert case, traditionally applied in homicide cases, were applicable to non-homicide charges. Furthermore, the court needed to evaluate if the evidence was adequate to support the conviction and whether the jury directions were clear enough to ensure the applicant's complicity in the offence was properly understood.

In delivering its judgment, the court examined the application of the principles from Gilbert, finding that they could indeed be extended to non-homicide charges in certain circumstances. The court considered the evidence thoroughly and concluded that it was sufficient to support the conviction. However, the court found that the jury directions may not have been sufficiently clear, potentially impacting the applicant's understanding of his role in the offence. Additionally, the court addressed the claim of sentencing disparity, providing a detailed analysis of the sentencing principles applicable to the case.

The final orders of the court involved confirming the conviction while noting the shortcomings in the jury directions. The court did not find the evidence insufficient to support the conviction but highlighted the need for clearer directions in future trials to avoid similar issues. The sentencing was also reviewed, with the court ensuring that any disparity was appropriately addressed in accordance with legal principles.

Orders