Legal Research
Cases
R v Schaeffer

R v Schaeffer

Case [2005] VSCA 306 16 December 2005

Admissibility of Evidence

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

THE QUEEN	No. 366 of 2004
	v.
PETER SCHAEFFER

---

JUDGES:	WARREN, C.J., ORMISTON and EAMES, JJ.A.
WHERE HELD:	BALLARAT
DATE OF HEARING:	18 October 2005
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	16 December 2005
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2005] VSCA 306	1^st Revision 16 December 2005

---

Criminal law – Murder – Direction given as to “conscious, voluntary and deliberate act” – Whether use of “deliberate” appropriate – Defence of accident – Direction that fatal act must not be intended or foreseen by the applicant and would not reasonably have been foreseen by an ordinary person – Direction held inappropriate in Victoria.

Criminal law – Evidence – Admission – Record of interview – Interview suspended to allow accused to exercise right to telephone a friend - Admission overheard by investigating police officer – Interview re-commenced and admission not put to accused – Voir dire – Admission denied by accused and friend - Whether discretion to admit evidence wrongly exercised – Whether warning should be given to jury – Whether Crimes Act 1958 s.464H applied.

Criminal law – Murder - Causation – Self-defence – Manslaughter – Directions – Manslaughter direction that “really serious injury” and “serious injury” mean the same thing.

Evidence – Cross-examination of defence witness – Whether cross-examination unfair.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr C.G. Hillman, S.C.	Mr S. Carisbrooke, Acting Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Applicant	Mr P.G. Priest, Q.C. with Mr M.J. Croucher	Tony Hannebery Lawyers

WARREN, C.J.:

The circumstances that surround the conviction of the applicant on a presentment for murder are set out in the judgment of Eames, J.A. and which I gratefully adopt.

Under ground 1, the applicant complained as to a misdirection by the trial judge upon the elements of murder. The ground and the direction given are fully set out in the judgment of Eames, J.A. The trial judge provided the jury with a document setting out his Honour’s description of the ingredients of murder. His Honour then proceeded in his charge to give directions to the jury that Mr Hillman, for the Crown, conceded on the application were wrong. The trial judge informed the jury, inter alia; “for murder, the prosecution has to prove that he deliberately stabbed him in the fatal way and that it was deliberate and it was not an accident.” However, elsewhere in the charge, his Honour provided the jury with a definition of the word “deliberate”, namely, that the word meant “…that the fatal stabbing was something which was not intended or foreseen by the accused and could not reasonably have been foreseen by an ordinary person.”

The defence case at trial was that the fatal stabbing was an accident, explained by the deceased falling onto the knife in the fight, or occurring in the course of the applicant warning the deceased away. Once the trial judge introduced the element of reasonable foreseeability into the equation in attempting to define the word “deliberate”, there was a risk…

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 Schaeffer

Details

AGLC: R v Schaeffer [2005] VSCA 306
Case: [2005] VSCA 306
Decision Date: 16 December 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Schaeffer involved the accused, who was charged with murder. The dispute centred on whether the trial judge's directions regarding the definition of a "conscious, voluntary and deliberate act" were appropriate, particularly in relation to the defence of accident. The Supreme Court of Victoria was tasked with determining the correctness of these directions, as well as the admissibility of certain evidence and the appropriateness of directions given on the concepts of "really serious injury" and "serious injury" in the context of self-defence and manslaughter.

The legal issues before the court included whether the use of the term "deliberate" was suitable in the context of the direction given to the jury concerning the defence of accident, and whether the trial judge had correctly exercised their discretion to admit an overheard admission made by the accused during a police interview. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the directions on "really serious injury" and "serious injury" were appropriate in the context of self-defence and manslaughter.

The Supreme Court of Victoria held that the trial judge's use of the term "deliberate" in the direction regarding the defence of accident was inappropriate, as it did not align with the statutory language of the relevant legislation. Furthermore, the court found that the trial judge had correctly exercised their discretion in admitting the overheard admission, but should have given a warning to the jury about the circumstances in which the admission was made. The court also held that the direction regarding "really serious injury" and "serious injury" was not appropriate, as the terms do not have the same meaning in the context of self-defence and manslaughter.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court of Victoria quashed the conviction and ordered a retrial. The court found that the trial judge's direction regarding the defence of accident was inappropriate, and the direction on "really serious injury" and "serious injury" was also incorrect. The court also held that the admission should have been subject to a warning to the jury, but the trial judge's decision to admit the evidence was not erroneous.

Orders