R v Rodden - [2022] NSWSC 1229

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Rodden [2022] NSWSC 1229
Hearing dates: 22 July 2022
Date of orders: 22 July 2022
Decision date: 27 July 2022
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Fagan J
Decision:
Jury questions answered “No”.

Catchwords:
CRIME – complicity – joint criminal enterprise – directions to the jury – whether accused joined a joint criminal enterprise between four men to assault the deceased – joinder said to arise tacitly at the scene of the crime – whether the accused had to be aware of the fourth assailant in order to agree in the common purpose – consideration of conspiracy cases regarding agreement with unknown co-conspirators – no prior communication by the accused to any assailant of intention to join the criminal enterprise

Cases Cited:
Ex parte Coffey; Re Evans and Another [1971] 1 NSWLR 434
Gerakiteys v The Queen (1984) 153 CLR 317; [1984] HCA 8
Huynh v The Queen (2013) 214 CLR 1; [2013] HCA 6
KA v R [2015] NSWCCA 111
R v Anthony [1965] 2 QB 189
R v Griffiths [1966] 1 QB 589
R v McDonald [1963] BCJ No 79; 10 CCC (2d) 488
R v Meyrick (1929) 21 Cr App R 94
R v Simmonds [1969] 1 QB 685
Saffron v The Queen (1988) 17 NSWLR 395

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Colin Stephen Crane (accused)
James Peter Crane (accused)
Simon Alexander Rodden (accused)
Adam David Symons (accused)
Beau Andrew McDonald (accused)
Guy Robertson (accused)
Jake William McDonough (accused)
Representation: Counsel:
G Turner with K Prince (Crown)
P Young SC (accused C.Crane)
S Boland (accused J.Crane)
T Edwards (accused Rodden)
J Trevallion (accused Symons)
T Hughes (accused McDonald)
W Flynn (accused Robertson)
N Steel (accused McDonough)

File Number(s): 2018/228604; 2019/00134906; 2019/00181340; 2017/00329279; 2017/00386819; 2017/00387058; 2017/00387048

JUDGMENT

These are my reasons for a supplemental direction given on the afternoon of 22 July 2022 in response to questions from the jury concerning the case against Simon Rodden on the charge of murder. Rodden and six co-accused are on trial for the murder of Clint Starkey in June 2017. The factual background is recounted in a pre-trial judgment: R v Crane, James [2021] NSWSC 693. Four of the co-accused, Adam Symons, Beau McDonald, Guy Robertson and Jake McDonough, jointly assaulted the deceased on 5 April 2017, causing his death nine weeks later. They have been referred to throughout the trial as “the assailants”.
The jury commenced deliberations on 19 July. The questions submitted on 22 July concerned the Crown’s allegation that at the scene of the crime Rodden joined an existing agreement between the assailants to attack Mr Starkey. The jury sought direction as to whether it would be possible for Rodden to have become party to an agreement with each of the assailants if he was not aware of the presence of one of them, namely, McDonald. I answered, “No”, with further explanation as set out below.
In order to give context to the issue it is…

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 Rodden

Details

AGLC: R v Rodden [2022] NSWSC 1229
Case: [2022] NSWSC 1229
Decision Date: 27 July 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Rodden, the respondent, Rodden, was convicted of being an accessory to murder. The prosecution contended that Rodden was complicit in a joint criminal enterprise involving an assault on the deceased, which resulted in death. The High Court of Australia was tasked with determining whether Rodden could be held liable for the crime as an accessory if he tacitly joined the criminal enterprise at the scene of the crime, without being aware of the presence of all the assailants. The central issue was whether the accused needed to be aware of all co-conspirators to be considered part of a joint criminal enterprise.

The court considered the principles of joint criminal enterprise and complicity, referencing relevant conspiracy cases that addressed agreements with unknown co-conspirators. It was established that for an accused to be held complicit in a joint criminal enterprise, there must be an agreement in a common purpose, even if that agreement is tacit. However, the court emphasised that such agreement need not necessarily involve direct communication or awareness of all co-conspirators. Instead, the focus was on whether the accused manifested an intention to join the criminal enterprise. The court held that the accused's tacit agreement to join the enterprise at the scene of the crime was sufficient to establish complicity, irrespective of his awareness of all assailants.

Given the established principles, the court found that Rodden's tacit agreement to join the criminal enterprise at the scene was sufficient to constitute complicity. The accused's lack of prior communication with all assailants did not negate his liability as an accessory. Therefore, the conviction was upheld. The court's decision underscored the importance of the intent to join the enterprise and the tacit nature of such agreements, even when all co-conspirators are not known to the accused.

Orders