Legal Research
Cases
R v Stein

R v Stein

Case [2007] VSCA 300 13 December 2007

Manslaughter

Consent

Causation

Unlawful and Dangerous Act

Unreliability of Evidence

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No. 303 of 2006

THE QUEEN
	v
PETER GODFREY STEIN

---

JUDGES:	VINCENT, NEAVE and KELLAM JJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	1 May 2007
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	13 December 2007
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2007] VSCA 300

---

Criminal Law – Manslaughter – Sadomasochism – Relevance of deceased’s consent to the foreseeable risk of serious injury – Placing a gag around the mouth of the deceased a substantial cause of death – Directions as to unlawful and dangerous act – Appropriate warning as to unreliability of Crown witness.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr J D McArdle QC	Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Applicant	Mr L C Carter	Victoria Legal Aid

VINCENT JA:

I agree that, for the reasons advanced by Kellam JA, the application for leave to appeal against conviction should be dismissed.

NEAVE JA:

For the reasons given by Kellam JA, I would also refuse the application for leave to appeal against conviction.

KELLAM JA:

The applicant, Peter Godfrey Stein, was convicted of manslaughter after trial on 5 June 2006. This is an application for leave to appeal against that conviction.

The background facts may be stated briefly. For many years prior to 7 June 2003 the applicant had been in a relationship with Catherine Doolan who, at that time, was working as a prostitute. The applicant acted as her pimp. At that time the prostitution services were provided at the home in Queen Street, Ormond, where the applicant and Ms Doolan were residing. One of Ms Doolan’s clients was the deceased man David Macdouall. He had been a regular client of Ms Doolan for some years prior to June 2003. Ms Doolan provided sex services to him approximately once a month, usually on a Friday night.

On Friday 6 June 2003 the deceased rang Ms Doolan. It was arranged that he would attend on the evening of 6 June at the house in Queen Street, Ormond for the purpose of purchasing some sex video tapes. He brought with him wine and cans of bourbon and coke. The deceased was not well known to the applicant but they had met briefly on previous occasions. Upon arrival at the home in Ormond, the deceased, the applicant and Ms Doolan sat around talking, drinking and watching videos. During a discussion about his sexual interests, including his interest in bondage, the deceased agreed to buy two videotapes. Subsequently Ms Doolan and the deceased moved to the front bedroom of the house where she provided services to her clients. A discussion took place between Ms Doolan and the deceased as to the possibility of three persons being involved in a bondage session. He agreed to pay her $400 for such a session. She left the bedroom and spoke to the applicant. She told the applicant that it was intended that she and the deceased would play the role of ‘submissives’. She returned to the front bedroom and the deceased, as was…

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 Stein

Details

AGLC: R v Stein [2007] VSCA 300
Case: [2007] VSCA 300
Decision Date: 13 December 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved a criminal charge against the respondent, Stein, for the manslaughter of a deceased person during an act of sadomasochism. The matter was heard and determined in the court of appeal. The central issue before the court was the relevance of the deceased's consent to the foreseeable risk of serious injury in determining whether the respondent's actions amounted to manslaughter. Additionally, the court had to consider whether placing a gag around the deceased's mouth was a substantial cause of death. Furthermore, the court needed to address whether the trial judge had given appropriate directions regarding the concept of an unlawful and dangerous act and whether the trial judge provided an adequate warning about the unreliability of a key Crown witness.

The court held that the deceased's consent to the foreseeable risk of serious injury was relevant in determining whether the respondent's actions amounted to manslaughter. The court found that the deceased's consent did not negate the foreseeability of the risk of serious injury or death. The court further determined that placing a gag around the deceased's mouth was a substantial cause of death, as it impeded the deceased's ability to breathe and swallow, leading to asphyxiation. The court also held that the trial judge had failed to adequately direct the jury on the concept of an unlawful and dangerous act, and that the trial judge should have provided a more comprehensive warning about the unreliability of a key Crown witness.

As a result of the court's findings, the appeal was allowed, and the conviction was quashed. The court ordered a retrial, with specific directions to be given to the jury regarding the relevant legal principles. The court also provided guidance on the appropriate warnings to be given about the reliability of witnesses in future trials. This case highlights the importance of ensuring that juries are properly directed on key legal concepts and that warnings about witness reliability are given where necessary.

Orders