R v Natalie Burns - [2009] NSWDC 232

Reported Decision:
9 DCLR (NSW) 180

District Court

CITATION: R v Natalie BURNS [2009] NSWDC 232

HEARING DATE(S): 20/7/09-14/8/09

JUDGMENT DATE:
10 August 2009

JURISDICTION: Criminal

JUDGMENT OF: Woods QC DCJ

DECISION: Application for a directed verdict under head of "unlawfully dangerous act" refused
Application for a directed verdict under head of "grossly negligent criminal omission" refused

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - manslaughter - causation - unlawfully dangerous act - criminally negligent omission - good samaritan principle

LEGISLATION CITED: Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985
Northern Territory Criminal Code Act 1983

CASES CITED: The Queen v Kennedy, House of Lords (2007) UK HL 38
Royall v R (1991) 172 CLR 378
MacAngus & Kane v H.M. Advocate [2009] HCJAC 8
People v Beardsley, (1907) 113, North West, 1128
Jones v United States (1962) 308, 2d F.L.R.
R v Rao [1999] ACTSC 132
R v Lawford (1993) 69 A Crim R 115
R v Phillips (1971) 45 ALJR 467
R v Evans (Gemma) [2009] EWCA Crim 650
R v Styman and Taber [2004] NSWCCA 245
Donoghue and Stevenson [1932] A.C. 52
R v Taktak (1988) 34 A Crim R 334

TEXTS CITED: Stephen, J.F., A History Of The Criminal Law of England, (3 volumes) Macmillan, 1883.

PARTIES: The Crown
Natalie Burns

FILE NUMBER(S): 08/11/1219

COUNSEL: Mr P Calvert - Crown
Mr M Crawford-Fish - accused

SOLICITORS: NSW DPP
Andrew Harris and Associates

JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: In an earlier trial the husband, Brian Burns, has been found guilty of manslaughter by gross criminal negligence. The wife, Natalie Burns, is now on trial. The prosecution case is that the deceased was found dead in a backyard shed at the premises where the husband and wife resided. The Crown alleges that the deceased arrived at their flat for a drug deal – specifically to obtain methadone – and that criminal responsibility for the death attaches to the wife as well as to the husband.

2 At the close of the case, Mr Crawford-Fish for the defence submits that there is no case to answer on the manslaughter charge. Firstly, on “unlawful and dangerous act”, he submits that the drug was, on the Crown case, handed over to an adult person apparently in possession of his faculties, who could choose to throw the drug into the garbage bin, or to consume it as he saw fit. He made a decision about it in the same way that people make decisions about the consumption of all sorts of things in their daily lives.

3 He relies upon the decision in The Queen v Kennedy, House of Lords (2007) UK HL 38. In that case the House of Lords dealt with a question phrased in the following terms:

“When is it appropriate to find someone guilty of manslaughter where that person has been involved in the supply of a class A controlled drug which is then freely and voluntarily self-administered by the person to whom it was supplied and the administration of the drug then…

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 Natalie Burns

Details

AGLC: R v Natalie Burns [2009] NSWDC 232
Case: [2009] NSWDC 232
Decision Date: 10 August 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Natalie Burns, the defendant was charged with manslaughter following the death of a child who drowned in a swimming pool. The dispute centred around whether the defendant's actions or omissions were unlawful and dangerous, and whether they were the direct cause of the child's death. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The court was tasked with determining whether the defendant's actions or omissions were unlawful and dangerous, and whether they constituted a breach of criminal law, leading to the child's death. The court also needed to consider whether the defendant's actions could be considered a grossly negligent criminal omission, and if the so-called "good Samaritan" principle applied in this case.

The court examined the concept of causation in the context of an unlawfully dangerous act, and whether the defendant's actions met the required threshold. It was established that for a person to be guilty of manslaughter by an unlawfully dangerous act, the act must be unlawful and dangerous, and the death must be a direct result of that act. The court also considered the principle of gross negligence, and whether the defendant's failure to act in a situation where there was a duty to do so, constituted a grossly negligent criminal omission. Furthermore, the court deliberated on whether the "good Samaritan" principle could absolve the defendant of liability, considering whether the defendant had a special relationship with the victim or was under a legal or moral duty to act.

In its judgment, the court found that the defendant's actions did not constitute an unlawfully dangerous act. However, it was also established that the defendant's omissions could potentially be considered grossly negligent. Nevertheless, the court ultimately ruled that the defendant's actions did not meet the threshold for a directed verdict on the basis of either an unlawfully dangerous act or a grossly negligent criminal omission. The court held that the case should proceed to the jury for a determination on these issues. The "good Samaritan" principle was not found to be applicable in this case.

The court denied the defendant's applications for a directed verdict under both the unlawfully dangerous act and grossly negligent criminal omission heads. The matter proceeded to the jury for a determination on the liability of the defendant.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for a directed verdict under head of "unlawfully dangerous act" refused

Application for a directed verdict under head of "grossly negligent criminal omission" refused

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	R v Natalie BURNS [2009] NSWDC 232
HEARING DATE(S):	20/7/09-14/8/09
JUDGMENT DATE:	10 August 2009
JURISDICTION:	Criminal
JUDGMENT OF:	Woods QC DCJ
DECISION:	Application for a directed verdict under head of "unlawfully dangerous act" refused Application for a directed verdict under head of "grossly negligent criminal omission" refused
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW - manslaughter - causation - unlawfully dangerous act - criminally negligent omission - good samaritan principle
LEGISLATION CITED:	Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 Northern Territory Criminal Code Act 1983
CASES CITED:	The Queen v Kennedy, House of Lords (2007) UK HL 38 Royall v R (1991) 172 CLR 378 MacAngus & Kane v H.M. Advocate [2009] HCJAC 8 People v Beardsley, (1907) 113, North West, 1128 Jones v United States (1962) 308, 2d F.L.R. R v Rao [1999] ACTSC 132 R v Lawford (1993) 69 A Crim R 115 R v Phillips (1971) 45 ALJR 467 R v Evans (Gemma) [2009] EWCA Crim 650 R v Styman and Taber [2004] NSWCCA 245 Donoghue and Stevenson [1932] A.C. 52 R v Taktak (1988) 34 A Crim R 334
TEXTS CITED:	Stephen, J.F., A History Of The Criminal Law of England, (3 volumes) Macmillan, 1883.
PARTIES:	The Crown Natalie Burns
FILE NUMBER(S):	08/11/1219
COUNSEL:	Mr P Calvert - Crown Mr M Crawford-Fish - accused
SOLICITORS:	NSW DPP Andrew Harris and Associates