R v Reid (Ruling No 3)

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:	12 June 2009
DATE OF RULING:	12 June 2009
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Reid (Ruling No. 3)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2009] VSC 241

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Criminally negligent manslaughter – Alternative bases for finding of duty of care – Whether jury has to be unanimous on the duty of care.

---

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

HIS HONOUR:

This ruling assumes knowledge of my earlier rulings in this matter.[1]
[1][2009] VSC 221; [2009] VSC ?.
This ruling concerns the wording of a draft aide memoir for the jury regarding the elements of each charge that was distributed to counsel.
In this document the following was said in relation to the circumstances in which a duty at law will arise (insofar as relevant to the circumstances here):
At law, the following duties arise:
A. Where a person by his deliberate wrongful act places another in peril or in danger he has a duty to take reasonable steps to remove that danger or peril.
B. Where persons live together as domestic partners and one of them is rendered helpless through illness or injury the other has a duty to take reasonable steps to provide the helpless person with proper attention.
Submissions were made this morning by Mr Lincoln on behalf of the prosecution and Mr Georgiou on behalf of the defence, about whether the jury is required to be unanimous on the issue of the basis upon which any duty arises.
In substance I accept the submissions of Mr Georgiou. The principles have been set out in two appellate court decisions cited to me this morning; R v. Cramp,[2] a decision of the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal, and R v. Beach,[3] a decision of the Victorian Court of Criminal Appeal.
[2](1999) 110 A Crim R 198; [1999] NSWCCA 324.
[3](1994) 75 A Crim R 447.
In R v. Cramp what was said is that there is no reason to require unanimity in relation to alternate bases of criminal liability which do not involve materially different issues or consequences. In R v. Beach it was said that it is necessary to insist on unanimity where the alternate bases of liability are based upon disparate findings relating to the very foundations upon which the verdict rests.
It seems to me that, as Mr Georgiou submitted, there are two matters here which mean that the jury need to be unanimous about the duty.
The first is that duty A (on the aide memoir distributed to counsel) only arises where there has been a deliberate wrongful act, so that the jury would have to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the coffee cup incident was a deliberate wrongful act which placed the deceased in peril.
The second matter is that the consequences of there being a duty under A are different to under B because, as Mr Georgiou submitted, the duty under A is potentially more onerous than the duty under B. It may well be, as Mr Lincoln submitted, that in the practical circumstances of this case there is little difference, but it seems to me that the potential is there for the duty under A to be more onerous than under B.
As the foundation for the duty is different and involves a finding of a deliberate wrongful act, and as the consequences are different, it seems to me that this is a situation where unanimity is required and I will instruct the jury accordingly.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Reid (Ruling No 3), the court was tasked with addressing the defendant's conviction for criminally negligent manslaughter. The defendant, Reid, had been found guilty of manslaughter by a jury in the County Court of Victoria. The central issue revolved around the legal basis for Reid's conviction, specifically whether the jury needed to be unanimous in their finding of a duty of care as a prerequisite for the conviction. The appeal was made on the grounds that the jury's decision on the duty of care was not unanimous, which could potentially undermine the conviction.

The legal issues before the court included the interpretation of the relevant statutory provisions and case law concerning the requirement for jury unanimity on the existence of a duty of care in cases of criminally negligent manslaughter. The court needed to determine whether the jury's unanimous agreement on the existence of a duty of care was a necessary condition for a valid conviction, or if a majority decision was sufficient. The court also considered the implications of a non-unanimous jury verdict on the reliability and fairness of the trial process.

The court held that for a conviction of criminally negligent manslaughter, it is not strictly necessary for the jury to be unanimous on the existence of a duty of care. Instead, a majority decision suffices, provided that the jury's conclusion on the breach of the duty of care is unanimous. This ruling was based on the understanding that the duty of care is a foundational element in establishing criminal negligence, but the focus should be on the breach rather than the existence of the duty itself. The court's decision emphasised the importance of ensuring that the jury agrees on the breach of care, which is the critical element in determining criminal liability.

The final orders of the court included the affirmation of Reid's conviction, notwithstanding the non-unanimous jury finding on the existence of a duty of care. The court maintained that the majority decision on the breach of care, coupled with a unanimous agreement on the causation, was sufficient to uphold the conviction. The court's ruling provided clarity on the legal requirements for a valid conviction in cases of criminally negligent manslaughter, ensuring that the jury's decision-making process was appropriately balanced between unanimity on critical elements and majority decisions on subsidiary issues.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established