R v Manuel - [2015] NSWSC 1562

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Manuel [2015] NSWSC 1562
Hearing dates: 12 October 2015
Date of orders: 12 October 2015
Decision date: 12 October 2015
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Campbell J
Decision:
The evidence of the accused’s post-offending conduct is admissible

Catchwords: EVIDENCE – admissibility – conduct post-offence - whether evidence can be used as consciousness of guilt by Crown – where it is open to jury to convict on murder or manslaughter
Legislation Cited: Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Edwards v The Queen [1993] HCA 63; 178 CLR 193;
Gall v R [2015] NSWCCA 69;
Kuehne v R [2012] NSWCCA 270;
R v Cook [2004] NSWCCA 52;
R v Sievers (2004) NSWCCA 463; 151 A Crim R 426;
Steer v The Queen (2008) NSWCA 295; 191 A Crim R 435;
The Queen v Lucas [1981] Q.B. 720
Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Mr Dinky Gordon Manuel (Accused)
Representation:
Counsel: Mr P Lynch (Crown)
Mr C Smith SC (Accused)
Solicitors: Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Legal Aid (Accused)

File Number(s): 2013/138360

ex tempore judgment (revised)

Mr Manuel is charged on indictment with the murder of his friend, a Mr Rein said to have occurred on or about 30 April 2013 at Penshurst in the State of New South Wales. A jury is yet to be empanelled. I am asked to make a preliminary ruling in accordance with the provisions of s 192A Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) about the admissibility of evidence of post-offence conduct of Mr Manuel that the Crown will seek to tender before the jury.
Mr Manuel has entered a general plea of not guilty to the charge. However I am informed by Mr Smith of learned senior counsel who appears for him that there is no issue that Mr Manuel performed the acts which led to Mr Rein's death. That consisted in the words of Mr Smith's written submissions of Mr Manuel bashing Mr Rein with a length of wood in Mr Rein's home unit at Penshurst.
The defence case is that Mr Rein made a sexual advance towards Mr Manuel which was rebuffed. Mr Rein then attacked Mr Manuel with a piece of wood included amongst a number of pieces of wood he apparently kept for barricading the doors of his home unit. Mr Manuel disarmed Mr Rein and struck him a number of times causing the injuries which led to Mr Rein's death.
The real issues for determination by the jury consist of the following:

Whether at the time he bashed him with the wood Mr Manuel intended to inflict really serious personal injury upon Mr Rein;

Self-defence; and

Alternatively, provocation

The evidence of post-offence conduct which the prosecution wish to tender is the contents of a document that was admitted in the previous trial of Mr Manuel for this offence as Exhibit Q. Essentially it is a narrative…

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 Manuel

Details

AGLC: R v Manuel [2015] NSWSC 1562
Case: [2015] NSWSC 1562
Decision Date: 12 October 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Manuel, the defendant was accused of committing a murder. The matter was brought before the court to determine the admissibility of certain evidence presented by the Crown, which they sought to use as proof of the defendant's consciousness of guilt. The court was tasked with deciding whether such evidence could be admitted under the circumstances, particularly when it was possible for the jury to convict the defendant of either murder or manslaughter. The case hinged on the interpretation and application of the relevant legal principles surrounding the admissibility of post-offence conduct as evidence of guilt.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Crown could introduce evidence of the defendant's conduct after the offence occurred, to demonstrate that the defendant was conscious of guilt. The court had to consider the principles that govern the admissibility of such evidence, and whether it could be used to support a conviction for either murder or manslaughter. The court also needed to determine whether the evidence could be considered by the jury in the context of both possible verdicts.

In reaching its decision, the court examined the relevant case law and statutory provisions that pertain to the admissibility of post-offence conduct as evidence of guilt. The court held that evidence of the defendant's conduct following the offence could be admitted, provided it was relevant to the issue of consciousness of guilt. The court found that such evidence could be considered by the jury in determining whether the defendant was guilty of either murder or manslaughter, as it was open to the jury to convict on either charge. The court also emphasised that the jury must be directed to consider the evidence in the context of both possible verdicts, and to assess its probative value and potential prejudicial effect.

The court's decision in this case clarified the legal principles surrounding the admissibility of post-offence conduct as evidence of guilt, and provided guidance to courts when considering similar issues in future cases. The court held that such evidence could be admitted, provided it was relevant to the issue of consciousness of guilt, and could be considered by the jury in the context of both possible verdicts. The court also emphasised the importance of directing the jury to assess the probative value and potential prejudicial effect of such evidence. The final orders in the case were left to the discretion of the trial court, which would need to consider the specific facts and circumstances of the case when making its determination.

Orders