R v RMC - [2013] NSWCCA 285

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v RMC [2013] NSWCCA 285
Hearing dates: 29 October 2013
Decision date: 14 November 2013
Before: Latham J at [1]
R A Hulme J at [2]
Barr AJ at [60]
Decision:
1. Quash the acquittal of the respondent.
2. Order that the respondent be retried in the District Court before a different judge.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - Crown appeal - directed acquittal - failure by trial judge to apply correct principles - failure to take Crown case at its highest - direction made before conclusion of Crown case - appropriate case for exercise of residual discretion to quash verdict and order new trial
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 (NSW)
Road Rules 2008 (NSW)
Cases Cited: May v O'Sullivan (1955) 92 CLR 654
R v PL [2009] NSWCCA 256; (2009) A Crim R 199
R v R (1989) 18 NSWLR 74
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Regina
RMC
Representation: Counsel:
Mr P Ingram SC (Crown)
Mr T Gartelmann (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
Braye Cragg Solicitors

File Number(s): 2011/406314
Decision under appeal

Jurisdiction:

9101

Date of Decision:

2013-05-15 00:00:00

Before:

Maiden SC DCJ

File Number(s):

2011/406314

Judgment

LATHAM J: I agree with R A Hulme J.

R A HULME J: This is an appeal pursuant to s 107 of the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 (NSW) against the acquittal of the respondent by a jury at the direction of a judge of the District Court.

On 13 May 2013, the respondent was arraigned and pleaded not guilty to a single count of dangerous driving causing death. A jury was empanelled and a trial proceeded. But on the third day, while the Crown was still presenting its case, his Honour Judge Maiden SC declared, "it ends now". After giving a short judgment he directed the jury to deliver a verdict of not guilty.

Serious errors attended his Honour's decision to direct the respondent's acquittal. The acquittal must be quashed and the respondent returned to the District Court for further trial.

The Crown case

At about 8.30pm on 19 August 2011, the respondent was driving a car on Limeburners Creek Road approaching Clarence Town (which is a little inland from the highway between Raymond Terrace and Karuah). Ms Danielle Thomlinson, his girlfriend, was sitting in the front passenger's seat.

Just before leaving generally rural terrain and entering Clarence Town, the road bends to the left and then immediately crosses the Williams River Bridge. There is no street lighting in the area. The speed limit is 50 km/h. The Crown case was that the respondent lost control of the car when he came to the bend in the road and in the course of trying to regain control he collided with the bridge. The car went through a wooden railing and ended up in the river. Sadly, Ms Thomlinson died as a result.

In a subsequent police interview the respondent gave an account that…

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 RMC

Details

AGLC: R v RMC [2013] NSWCCA 285
Case: [2013] NSWCCA 285
Decision Date: 14 November 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v RMC, the respondent was convicted of three counts of rape and one count of indecent assault. The Crown appealed the decision to the Court of Appeal, arguing that the trial judge erred by directing an acquittal before the conclusion of the Crown's case. The respondent pleaded not guilty to all charges and the trial proceeded in the County Court of Victoria. The Crown's appeal was ultimately successful.

The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the trial judge erred in directing an acquittal before the Crown had finished presenting its case. The Court needed to determine if the trial judge correctly assessed the evidence presented by the Crown and whether the direction was made prematurely. Additionally, the Court had to consider whether the trial judge failed to take the Crown's case at its highest and whether this failure warranted the exercise of the Court's residual discretion to quash the verdict and order a new trial.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred in directing an acquittal before the Crown had finished presenting its case. The trial judge failed to take the Crown's case at its highest and made the direction prematurely. The Court held that the trial judge should have continued to hear the Crown's evidence before making a decision on the sufficiency of the case. The Court found that this error warranted the exercise of its residual discretion to quash the verdict and order a new trial. The appeal was therefore allowed, and the convictions were quashed.

The Court of Appeal quashed the convictions and ordered a new trial. The Court emphasised the importance of trial judges correctly assessing the evidence presented by the Crown and taking the Crown's case at its highest before making a decision on the sufficiency of the case. The Court also highlighted the need for trial judges to exercise caution when considering a direction to acquit, particularly before the conclusion of the Crown's case. The Court's decision in this case serves as a reminder to trial judges of the importance of correctly applying the relevant legal principles when considering a direction to acquit.

Orders