R v Ray & Vella (Ruling No. 3) - [2014] VSC 178

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

Nos. 0136 & 0137 of 2013

THE QUEEN

JACK RAY

and

NICHOLAS VELLA

---

JUDGE:	T. FORREST J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	24 March 2014
DATE OF RULING:	25 March 2014
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Ray & Vella (Ruling No. 3)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2014] VSC 178

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Manslaughter by criminal negligence – Defence submits there is no case to answer – Whether inferences relied upon by Crown require speculation or are otherwise not reasonably open – Circumstantial case – Whether jury could rationally exclude all reasonable hypotheses consistent with innocence – Duty of Care arising out of wrongful conduct of accused – Assault and false imprisonment – Jury could rationally conclude that the accused were aware, or ought to have been aware, that their actions carried with them an appreciable risk of death or really serious injury – Breach of duty – Open to jury to conclude that breach involved high risk of death or really serious injury – Causation – Act or omission that causes death must be the act or omission breaching the duty, not the conduct that gives rise to the duty – No evidence that breach of duty would have prevented death – Causation would require impermissible speculation – No case to answer – Jury discharged from delivering a verdict on the manslaughter charge.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	A. Grant	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the First Accused	C. Dane QC	James Dowsley & Associates
For the Second Accused	S. Johns	Robert Stary Lawyers

HIS HONOUR:

The accused men are charged with aggravated burglary, manslaughter by criminal negligence and false imprisonment. Counsel for the accused men have submitted that there is insufficient evidence to sustain the manslaughter charge and accordingly there is no case to answer on that charge. The prosecution oppose this application.

The deceased man, Christopher Meade, was 29 years old and in apparent good health. He dealt in drugs and stolen goods. He had worked as an air conditioning mechanic until shortly before his death. At about 8:00PM on 28 June 2012 the two accused men attended at Mr Meade’s home at 9 Kiora Avenue, Doreen. Not long after their attendance at that address the accused men subdued and bound Mr Meade by the wrists and ankles. The prosecution alleges that both accused went to Mr Meade’s house to assault him and retrieve stolen goods said to be present there. At some time before 8:30PM both accused men left the house. Mr Meade was observed at about 8:40pm not to have a pulse or to be breathing. An ambulance was called however efforts to revive Mr Meade failed.

At autopsy the following injuries were noted:

· Left periorbital haematoma (black eye) with adjacent lacerations to the eyelid.

· Laceration to the left eyebrow.

· Abrasion to the left upper cheek.

· Abrasion immediately in front of the left…

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 Ray & Vella (Ruling No. 3)

Details

AGLC: R v Ray and Vella (Ruling No. 3) [2014] VSC 178
Case: [2014] VSC 178
Decision Date: 25 March 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Ray & Vella (Ruling No. 3), the respondents, Ray and Vella, appealed against their convictions for manslaughter by criminal negligence. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The respondents argued that the Crown had not established a case to answer, submitting that the inferences upon which the Crown relied were speculative or otherwise not reasonably open. The Crown's case against the respondents hinged on the notion that they had a duty of care towards the deceased, stemming from their prior wrongful conduct, which amounted to assault and false imprisonment, and that this duty was breached in a manner that involved a high risk of death or serious injury.

The court was tasked with determining whether the Crown had presented a case that allowed the jury to rationally exclude all reasonable hypotheses consistent with the innocence of the respondents, and whether the inferences relied upon by the Crown required speculation or were otherwise not reasonably open. The court also needed to decide if the respondents' breach of duty involved a high risk of death or serious injury and whether there was a causal link between the breach and the death of the deceased.

The court found that the jury could not rationally conclude that the respondents were aware, or ought to have been aware, that their actions carried with them an appreciable risk of death or serious injury. It was also determined that the breach of duty, if any, did not involve a high risk of death or serious injury. The court held that the act or omission that causes death must be the act or omission breaching the duty, not the conduct that gives rise to the duty. The court found that there was no evidence that the breach of duty would have prevented the death of the deceased, and that establishing causation would require impermissible speculation. Consequently, the court held that there was no case to answer, and the jury was discharged from delivering a verdict on the manslaughter charge.

Orders