R v Russell Norman Field - [2011] ACTSC 35

R v RUSSELL NORMAN FIELD
[2011] ACTSC 35 (8 March 2011)

CRIMINAL LAW – trial by judge alone – double murder – self-defence – whether the accused believed that his actions were necessary in order to defend himself – whether the degree of force used was necessary for self-protection – objective reasonableness of the response to be assessed against the existence of a threat which calls for that response – prosecution did not rebut reasonable hypothesis that the accused acted in self-defence – verdict of not guilty entered

Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT), s 68C
Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), s 12, 13, 15, 49
Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), s42

Zecevic v DPP (Vic) (1987) 162 CLR 645

R v O’Meara [2009] ACTSC 122 (18 September 2009)
Lukatela v Apostoloff [2009] ACTSC 167 (17 December 2009)

No. SCC 441 of 2009

Judge: Higgins CJ
Supreme Court of the ACT

Date: 8 March 2011

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE     )
  )          No. SCC 441 of 2009
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY           )

R

v

RUSSELL NORMAN FIELD

ORDER

Judge:  Higgins CJ
Date:  8 March 2011
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

A verdict of not guilty be entered with respect of count 1.

A verdict of not guilty be entered with respect of count 2.

The accused, Russell Norman Field is charged with two counts of murder, namely:

FIRST COUNT

... THAT on the 24^th day of March 2009 at Canberra in the Australian Capital Territory Russell Norman Field murdered Richard John Roberts.

SECOND COUNT

AND FURTHER THAT on the 24^th day of March 2009 at Canberra the aforesaid Russell Norman Field murdered Gregory Peter Carrigan.

On 17 February 2010 the accused elected for trial by judge alone. He has entered a plea of not guilty to each count.

For the purposes of this trial, which commenced on 20 September 2010, I must assume the role of the jury as well as that of trial judge.

The procedure is governed by s 68C of the Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT):

(1)A judge who tries criminal proceedings without a jury may make any finding that could have been made by a jury as to the guilt of the accused person and any such finding has, for all purposes, the same effect as a verdict of a jury.
(2)The judgment in criminal proceedings tried by a judge alone shall include the principles of law applied by the judge and the findings of fact on which the judge relied.
(3)In criminal proceedings tried by a judge alone, if a Territory law would otherwise require a warning to be given to a jury in such proceedings, the judge shall take the warning into account in considering his or her verdict.

I remind myself of the principles governing a criminal trial.

The Crown assumes the heavy burden of proving each element of the alleged offences to the criminal standard, that is, beyond reasonable doubt.

The accused, whether he offers an answer to the accusations or not,…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Russell Norman Field and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2011] ACTSC 35
Decision Date: 8 March 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Russell Norman Field, was charged with the murders of two individuals. The case came before the court for a trial by judge alone, where the primary issues were whether Field acted in self-defence and whether the force used was necessary for self-protection. The court was tasked with determining the objective reasonableness of Field's response to the perceived threat and whether the prosecution had successfully rebutted the reasonable hypothesis that Field acted in self-defence.

The court examined the evidence presented and considered the principles of self-defence, including the belief of the accused that their actions were necessary to defend themselves and the necessity of the force used. The court concluded that the prosecution had not successfully rebutted the reasonable hypothesis that Field acted in self-defence. The court found that Field's belief in the necessity of his actions was genuine and that the degree of force used was proportionate to the threat he perceived. The objective reasonableness of Field's response was assessed against the existence of a threat that warranted such a response, and it was determined that the accused's actions were justified under the circumstances.

Based on the court's findings, a verdict of not guilty was entered with respect to both counts of murder. The orders of the court were that a verdict of not guilty be entered with respect of count 1 and count 2.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. A verdict of not guilty be entered with respect of count 1.

2. A verdict of not guilty be entered with respect of count 2.

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.

FIRST COUNT	... THAT on the 24^th day of March 2009 at Canberra in the Australian Capital Territory Russell Norman Field murdered Richard John Roberts.
SECOND COUNT	AND FURTHER THAT on the 24^th day of March 2009 at Canberra the aforesaid Russell Norman Field murdered Gregory Peter Carrigan.