R v Reid (Ruling No 2) - [2009] VSC 240

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1684 of 2008

THE QUEEN	Plaintiff
v
DAVID JOHN REID	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	WHELAN J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	10 June 2009
DATE OF RULING:	11 June 2009
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Reid (Ruling No. 2)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2009] VSC 240

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Criminally negligent manslaughter – No case submission – Causation – Application refused.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr M Lincoln	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Defendant	Mr G Georgiou	Victoria Legal Aid

HIS HONOUR:

The accused is charged with manslaughter by criminal negligence (Count 1) and with intentionally causing injury (Count 2).
In substance, the Crown case is that he struck the deceased with a coffee cup causing injury (Count 2) and that, having struck her, he failed to assist her, either himself, or by calling in aid outside intervention, when he had a duty to do so, and that as a result of that criminally negligent failure to act the deceased died (Count 1).
The prosecution case closed yesterday morning and upon closure counsel on behalf of the accused submitted that I should direct an acquittal on Count 1, the manslaughter. The submission was that the prosecution case had a fatal defect.
There is no controversy as to the legal principle to be applied. The test is set out in Doney v. R.[1]
[1](1990) 171 CLR 207, 214‑215.
The High Court said:
"[I]f there is evidence (even if tenuous or inherent weak or vague) which can be taken into account by the jury in its deliberations, and that evidence is capable of supporting a verdict of guilty, the matter must be left to the jury for its decision. Or, to put the matter in more usual terms, a verdict of not guilty may be directed only if there is a defect in the evidence such that, taken at its highest, it will not sustain a verdict of guilty."
Here counsel for the accused submitted that the defect which means that, taken at its highest, the evidence will not sustain a verdict of guilty is exposed by the evidence of the forensic pathologist called on behalf of the prosecution, Dr Woodford. Two passages were relied upon in this respect. The first is at transcript 161 and the second is at transcript 177‑178. I will turn to Dr Woodford's evidence more generally in a moment. For present purposes it suffices to say that Dr Woodford considered blood loss consequent upon what I will call the coffee cup injury to be a significant factor in the death.
At transcript 161 Dr Woodford responded to a question about the deceased's likelihood of survival if she had received medical attention some time shortly after that wound. He said:
"Given that I think that the blood loss here is a significant factor in the death, any medical attention that was able to be brought to…

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 Reid (Ruling No 2)

Details

AGLC: R v Reid (Ruling No 2) [2009] VSC 240
Case: [2009] VSC 240
Decision Date: 11 June 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant, Reid, was charged with criminally negligent manslaughter in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The case arose from an incident where the defendant's negligence resulted in the death of another individual. Reid applied for a no-case submission, arguing that the prosecution had failed to establish a causal link between his actions and the death. The court was required to determine whether the prosecution had presented sufficient evidence to prove that Reid's actions were the cause of the victim's death.

The primary legal issue the court had to decide was whether the prosecution had adduced enough evidence to establish that Reid's negligence directly caused the victim's death. This involved examining the chain of events and determining if the defendant's actions were a significant contributing factor to the death. The court considered the principles of causation in criminal law, including the concept of 'but for' causation and whether Reid's negligence was a substantial cause of the death.

The court found that the prosecution had presented sufficient evidence to establish a causal link between Reid's actions and the victim's death. The evidence demonstrated that Reid's negligence played a significant role in the chain of events leading to the death. Consequently, the court rejected Reid's application for a no-case submission. The court held that the prosecution had established the necessary elements to proceed to trial, including the critical issue of causation.

The final orders of the court were that Reid's application for a no-case submission was dismissed, and the matter proceeded to trial. The court's decision affirmed the importance of establishing causation in cases of criminally negligent manslaughter, ensuring that the prosecution must prove the defendant's actions were a substantial cause of the death.

Orders