District Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: R v Ross (No. 4) [2020] NSWDC 197 Hearing dates: 27 April – 1 May, 4-5 May 2020 Date of orders: 12 May 2020 Decision date: 12 May 2020 Jurisdiction: Criminal Before: Abadee DCJ Decision: See paragraphs 293-295
Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – gang assault on victim – victim suffers stab wound by one assailant – accused’s reliance upon alibi evidence – whether Crown disproved alibi evidence – joint enterprise liability – whether agreement to inflict grievous bodily harm – whether accused foresaw possibility of wounding Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 4, 33, 35, 59
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), ss 131, 133
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), ss 87, 116Cases Cited: Blackwell v R (2011) 81 NSWLR 119
Clayton v The Queen (2006) 168 A Crim R 174
De Silva v The Queen [2019] HCA 48
Fleming v The Queen (1998) 197 CLR 250
GBB v R [2019] NSWCCA 296
Gillard v The Queen (2003) 219 CLR 1
Huynh v The Queen [2013] HCA 6
IL v The Queen (2017) 260 A Crim R 101; [2017] HCA 27
McAuliffe v The Queen (1995) 183 CLR 108
McKey v R [2012] NSWCCA 1
Miller v The Queen (2016) 259 CLR 380
R v Nguyen [2001] VSCA 1
R v Smith (1837) 8 C & P 173
R v Winner (1995) 79 A Crim R 528
Swan v R [2016] NSWCCA 79
Youkhana v R (2015) 249 A Crim R 424Category: Principal judgment Parties: Director of Public Prosecutions
Mr DM RossRepresentation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
Mr K Gilson for the Director of Public Prosecutions
Mr J O’Sullivan for the accused
Solicitor for the Director of Public Prosecutions
Conditsis Lawyers for the accused
File Number(s): 2018/148887 Publication restriction: Nil
Judgment
BACKGROUND
-
On the afternoon of 19 April 2018, Mr David Monro (‘Monro’) was the victim of a violent assault by a group of men in and/or about a residential (motel-style) facility called ‘Strathavon’ in Boyce Avenue, Wyong. Droplets of his blood were located inside and outside those premises. It was uncontroversial that in the course of the assault, and amongst his other injuries, Monro was wounded by being stabbed on his lower right side.
-
The accused, Mr Daniel Michael Ross, is charged with 3 counts on an indictment. They are that on 19 April 2018, in Wyong in the State of New South Wales:
as to Count 1, he wounded the victim, David Monro, with intent to cause him grievous bodily harm, contrary to s 33(1)(a) of the Crimes Act1900 (NSW) (the ‘Act’);
in the alternative to Count 1, Count 2, in the company of Kirk Micallef and Shannon Hodder, he recklessly wounded David Monro, contrary to s 35(3) of the Act; and
further in the alternative, Count 3, in the company of Kirk Micallef and Shannon Hodder, he assaulted David Monro, contrary to s 59(2) of the Act.
-
This was a trial by judge alone. Section 133(1) of the Criminal…
Continue reading R v Ross (No. 4)
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Ross (No. 4) [2020] NSWDC 197
- Case
- [2020] NSWDC 197
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In addressing the first issue, the court examined the alibi evidence presented by Ross and determined whether it was sufficiently rebutted by the Crown. The court considered the credibility of the witnesses and the strength of the evidence presented by both parties. Regarding the second issue, the court assessed whether there was an agreement among the assailants to inflict grievous bodily harm and whether Ross foresaw the possibility of the victim being wounded. The court analysed the nature of the assault, the actions of the other assailants, and Ross's knowledge and intentions.
The court found that the Crown had successfully disproved Ross's alibi evidence, as the alibi witnesses were deemed unreliable and the Crown's evidence was more credible. In relation to joint enterprise liability, the court held that there was an agreement among the assailants to commit an assault, and that Ross had foreseen the possibility of the victim being wounded. Consequently, Ross was held liable for the grievous bodily harm inflicted upon the victim.
The final orders of the court were that Ross was found guilty of the charges brought against him, and his sentence was determined. The specific details of the sentence can be found in paragraphs 293-295 of the judgment.
Orders
Orders of the court
See paragraphs 293-295
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.