R v Meakin (No. 2) - [2016] NSWSC 1035

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Meakin (No. 2) [2016] NSWSC 1035
Hearing dates: 26 July 2016
Date of orders: 27 July 2016
Decision date: 27 July 2016
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Davies J
Decision:
See paragraph [11]

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – murder – crown case that accused deliberately struck the victim with his motor vehicle – whether reckless indifference should be left to the jury – no basis in evidence for reckless act – crown opening – reckless indifference not left to jury
Cases Cited: Campbell v R [2014] NSWCCA 175
R v Grant [2002] NSWCCA 243; (2002) 55 NSWLR 80
Royall v The Queen (1991) 172 CLR 378
The Queen v Crabbe (1985) 156 CLR 464
Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Crown
Michael Meakin (Accused)
Representation:
Counsel:
P Barrett (Crown)
G Brady SC (Accused)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Legal Aid NSW (Accused)

File Number(s): 2014/55959

JUDGMENT

An issue has arisen about whether reckless indifference should be left to the jury as a basis for the charge of murder. In opening the case, the Crown said this:

We say that the accused deliberately drove into collision with the deceased. He did so, if not intending to kill Mr McEvoy, at least to cause him serious injury...We say that even if the accused did not intend to kill, which we ultimately submit would be difficult to imagine, even if the accused did not intend to cause serious injury by striking with the motor vehicle the deceased from behind, he, even without those intentions, would be responsible for the alternative charge of manslaughter, which is an alternative to murder, because that conduct would be found by you to be both unlawful and dangerous in the circumstances.

On the third day of the trial, the jury asked for advice on the elements of count 2 on the indictment. During debate with counsel about the wisdom of acceding to that request at such an early stage, the Crown Prosecutor said this, at 209, line 36:

One of the matters, your Honour, I would like to consider a little further before your Honour does give them those directions and give them the written directions, is to consider whether your Honour should leave reckless indifference to the jury because of the complexity.

On the sixth day of the trial, I raised with counsel, at the outset, about the inclusion or otherwise of reckless indifference. The Crown Prosecutor said, at 270, line 24:

Your Honour, I'm of the view that it is, strictly speaking, available. My only concern was that there's a multiplicity of matters the jury have to consider, but it was simply my instant reaction to my first reading, but I'm not going to press your Honour not to leave it to the jury.

My own view at that stage was that reckless indifference was available. Counsel for the accused opposed it being left to the jury.
Further debate took place after the completion…

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 Meakin (No. 2)

Details

AGLC: R v Meakin (No. 2) [2016] NSWSC 1035
Case: [2016] NSWSC 1035
Decision Date: 27 July 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Meakin (No. 2) involved the defendant, Meakin, who was accused of murdering a pedestrian by deliberately striking them with his motor vehicle. The trial was held in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The fundamental issue for the court was whether the concept of reckless indifference should be presented to the jury as a potential basis for Meakin's guilt. The Crown argued that Meakin had acted with reckless indifference towards the victim, warranting a conviction for murder.

The court had to determine whether there was sufficient evidence to allow the jury to consider the notion of reckless indifference as a viable charge. The Crown's case posited that Meakin had exhibited a reckless disregard for the victim's safety, but the court found that the evidence did not support this claim. The court held that the Crown's case did not provide a basis for the jury to consider reckless indifference as a potential basis for the defendant's guilt. Consequently, the court ruled that the jury should not be presented with this concept.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court of Queensland determined that there was no basis in the evidence for the Crown's assertion that Meakin acted with reckless indifference towards the victim. As a result, the court directed the jury not to consider reckless indifference as a potential basis for the defendant's guilt. The final orders of the court were that the jury should not be presented with this concept as a potential basis for Meakin's guilt in the case of R v Meakin (No. 2).

Orders