R v Oberin (Ruling) - [2022] VSC 518

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Unrestricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2021 0056

THE QUEEN	Crown
v
DANIEL OBERIN	Accused

---

JUDGE:	Taylor J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATES OF HEARING:	22 April and 9 May 2022
DATE OF RULING:	6 September 2022
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Oberin (Ruling)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2022] VSC 518

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Accused charged with manslaughter – Deceased died from a shotgun blast to the head – Co-accused alleged to be the principal offender - Accused alleged to be complicit in unlawful and dangerous act – Accused and co-accused originally charged with murder – Fresh indictment charging co-accused with murder and accused with manslaughter – Co-accused subsequently pleaded guilty to manslaughter.

CRIMINAL LAW – Application for permanent stay of trial – Whether Crown acceptance of manslaughter plea from co-accused done for tactical advantage in trial of accused absent evidentiary foundation – Whether Crown case fundamentally flawed – Whether Crown can exclude reasonable possibility that act causing death was a deliberate, intentional shooting –– Whether deliberate, intentional shooting an intervening act breaking the ‘chain of complicity and causation’ – No abuse of process – Crown case not fundamentally flawed – Application for permanent stay refused – Crimes Act 1958, ss 323 and 324.

EVIDENCE – Whether evidence of animosity between the accused and deceased arising from sexual relationship between the accused’s ex-partner and the deceased relevant – Whether evidence unfairly prejudicial – Evidence admitted – Evidence Act 2008 ss 55, 137.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application for suppression order concerning plea of co-accused to manslaughter – Whether order necessary to prevent a real and substantial risk of prejudice to the proper administration of justice that cannot be prevented by other reasonably available means – Application granted until return of verdict in trial of accused – Open Courts Act 2013, ss 17 and 18.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr P Bourke QC with Mr G Buchhorn	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr D Dann QC with Mr B Johnston	Galbally & O’Bryan

HER HONOUR:

The accused is charged with manslaughter by unlawful and dangerous act contrary to common law.

The relevant act is said to be travelling to the address of Matthew Alexander (‘the deceased’) with a functioning, loaded shotgun and menacing the deceased with it. The shotgun then discharged in the direction of the deceased, fatally wounding him in the head.

The accused did not wield or discharge the shotgun. Kevin Johnson is alleged to be the principal offender who did so. The accused is alleged to be complicit in the relevant unlawful and dangerous act. Both Johnson and the accused were initially charged with murder. Johnson pleaded guilty to manslaughter on 22 April 2022.

The accused applies for a permanent stay of his trial on two bases. First, that the Crown cannot exclude the reasonable possibility that the deceased was shot with murderous intent by Johnson and, therefore, the accused cannot in…

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 Oberin (Ruling)

Details

AGLC: R v Oberin (Ruling) [2022] VSC 518
Case: [2022] VSC 518
Decision Date: 6 September 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Oberin, the respondent was charged with manslaughter following the death of the deceased from a shotgun blast to the head. The Crown alleged that the respondent and a co-accused were complicit in an unlawful and dangerous act. Both the respondent and the co-accused were initially charged with murder. However, the co-accused later pleaded guilty to manslaughter. The respondent applied for a permanent stay of the trial on the grounds that the Crown had accepted the co-accused's manslaughter plea for tactical advantage without an evidentiary foundation. The respondent also argued that the Crown's case was fundamentally flawed, as it could not exclude the possibility that the act causing death was a deliberate and intentional shooting. Additionally, the respondent sought a suppression order concerning the co-accused's plea to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice.

The court examined whether the Crown's acceptance of the co-accused's manslaughter plea was done for tactical advantage and whether the Crown's case was fundamentally flawed. The court found that there was no abuse of process and that the Crown's case was not fundamentally flawed. The court held that the Crown could exclude the reasonable possibility that the act causing death was a deliberate and intentional shooting. Consequently, the application for a permanent stay of the trial was refused. Furthermore, the court admitted evidence of animosity between the respondent and the deceased, arising from a sexual relationship between the respondent's ex-partner and the deceased, as it was relevant and not unfairly prejudicial. The court also granted a suppression order concerning the co-accused's plea until the return of the verdict in the respondent's trial, to prevent a real and substantial risk of prejudice to the proper administration of justice.

The court's decision in this case highlights the importance of evidentiary foundations in criminal trials and the need to ensure that the administration of justice is not prejudiced by irrelevant or prejudicial evidence. The court's refusal of the application for a permanent stay of the trial and its granting of a suppression order demonstrate its commitment to upholding the principles of fairness and justice in the criminal justice system. Ultimately, the court's decision provides valuable guidance for legal practitioners involved in similar cases and reinforces the importance of adhering to the relevant statutes and legal principles in criminal proceedings.

Orders