R v Robb (Ruling No 3) - [2015] VSC 505

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 2014 0123

THE QUEEN

KRISTY ROBB

---

JUDGE:	RUSH J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	17 September 2015
DATE OF RULING:	18 September 2015
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Robb (Ruling No 3)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2015] VSC 505 (First revision: 21 September 2015)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Evidence – Submission of no case to answer – Manslaughter by unlawful and dangerous act – Attorney-General’s Reference (No 1 of 1983) [1983] 2 VR 410 – DPP v Lawson & Ors (Ruling No 3) [2012] VSC 526 – R v Moffatt [2000] NSWCCA 174.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr P. Rose QC with Ms S. Coombes	Ms V. Anscombe, Acting Solicitors for Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr C. Mylonas	Paul Vale Criminal Law

HIS HONOUR:

The accused, Ms Kristy Robb, is charged with one count of manslaughter and one count of, without lawful excuse, intentionally causing serious injury. The charges arise from an incident that occurred on 30 January 2014 at premises occupied by the deceased, Mr Alan Matthews, at 25 Henry Street, Noble Park.

In short, it is alleged that Ms Robb, in company with Mr Gino Rachele, attended these premises at approximately 2.30am for the purpose of retrieving various items belonging to Ms Robb that Mr Matthews was holding on account of what he claimed was outstanding rent from Ms Robb. Ms Robb, with her children, had, for a brief period of time earlier in January, rented a bungalow at the rear of the premises.

Ms Robb and Mr Rachele, whilst removing items from the bungalow at the rear of the premises, were disturbed by Mr Matthews. The Crown alleges that Ms Robb, in the loungeroom of the bungalow, struck Mr Matthews to the head with a blunt instrument, causing lacerations and either struck or stomped on Mr Matthews, causing a fracture of his sternum. It is claimed that these events caused Mr Matthews stress, pain and blood loss.

Mr Rachele, prior to the commencement of this trial, pleaded guilty to recklessly causing injury and false imprisonment. Upon his plea, Mr Rachele undertook to give evidence in this trial. The Crown case is that Mr Rachele did not cause any serious injury to Mr Matthews. The evidence of Mr Rachele is that during the course of the incident, he took Mr Matthews to the floor, that in taking him to the floor Mr Matthews bumped his head and may have injured his nose, that he restrained Mr Matthews on the floor of the kitchen for a period of a couple of minutes, and upon releasing him from the floor, he falsely imprisoned Mr Matthews, firstly in the lounge of the bungalow by holding the door shut, and then in the kitchen area of the bungalow by holding the door at the entrance to the bungalow shut. He stated he did not see Ms Robb strike or…

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 Robb (Ruling No 3)

Details

AGLC: R v Robb (Ruling No 3) [2015] VSC 505
Case: [2015] VSC 505
Decision Date: 18 September 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Robb, Ruling No 3, involved the defendant, Robb, who was on trial for manslaughter by an unlawful and dangerous act. The dispute was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The primary issue the court needed to decide was whether there was sufficient evidence to support a conviction for manslaughter by an unlawful and dangerous act, particularly in the context of the defendant's argument that a no-case submission should be upheld.

The court considered the legal principles established in Attorney-General’s Reference (No 1 of 1983), DPP v Lawson & Ors, and R v Moffatt, among other cases. It examined whether the prosecution had provided enough evidence to establish the essential elements of manslaughter by an unlawful and dangerous act, such as the nature of the act, the existence of a duty of care, and the breach of that duty leading to the death of the victim. The court also weighed the defendant's argument that the prosecution had failed to prove the required mens rea and actus reus beyond reasonable doubt.

In delivering its judgment, the court concluded that the evidence presented was sufficient to allow the case to proceed to the jury. The court found that the prosecution had established a prima facie case that the defendant committed an unlawful and dangerous act, which breached a duty of care, and that this act resulted in the victim's death. The judge rejected the defendant's no-case submission, allowing the matter to be determined by the jury. The final orders of the court were to deny the defendant's no-case submission and to permit the case to continue to trial before a jury.

Orders