R v Stephen (No. 3) - [2018] NSWSC 168

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Stephen (No. 3) [2018] NSWSC 168
Hearing dates: 16 February 2018
Decision date: 20 February 2018
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Button J
Decision:
(1) Verdict of not guilty directed on the count of murder; trial to proceed on manslaughter.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – procedure – miscellaneous powers of court and judges – trial by jury on count of murder – application for verdict by direction – Crown prosecutor concedes before jury that murder cannot be proven and will not be contended for – verdict of not guilty directed on the count of murder – trial to proceed on manslaughter
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 418, 423
Cases Cited: Antoun v The Queen [2006] HCA 2; (2006) 159 A Crim R 513
Doney v The Queen [1990] HCA 51; (1990) 171 CLR 207
Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Regina
Jonda Rhani Stephen
Representation:
Counsel:
L Shaw (Crown)
P Dwyer (Accused)
Solicitors:
Director Of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
PJ Donnellan & Co (Accused)

File Number(s): 2017/00099898
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

This judgment explains the unusual turn of events that led me to direct a verdict of not guilty of murder in this trial conducted at Broken Hill.
A broad outline of the Crown allegation against the accused is contained in a previous judgment that I have delivered in this matter (R v Stephen (No. 1)). In a nutshell, it is that the accused stabbed the deceased in the heart on 5 October 2015 at their home in Broken Hill. The Crown has never disputed that she was being subjected to severe violence by the accused at the time, and that she had been subjected to it on many occasions throughout their romantic relationship of less than a year.
The accused was arraigned before a jury panel and me on 7 February 2018. The indictment contained a single count of murder, to which she pleaded not guilty. The Crown prosecutor and defence counsel opened to the jury, and the Crown case unfolded. It was clear from the start of the trial that an important issue for the determination of the jury would be whether, when she stabbed the deceased to the chest, causing his death, the accused was acting in self-defence.
The Crown case closed on 15 February 2018. Thereafter an application was made by defence counsel for a verdict of not guilty by direction on the count of murder on a number of bases.
The first basis for the application was that, taken at its highest, there was no evidence in the Crown case that the accused intended to inflict grievous bodily harm upon the deceased (the Crown did not allege an intention to kill).
I rejected that application, on the simple basis that the combined effect of the undisputed use of a knife, the location of the wound (on the left-hand side of the chest of the deceased), its track (between the ribs, through the…

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 Stephen (No. 3)

Details

AGLC: R v Stephen (No. 3) [2018] NSWSC 168
Case: [2018] NSWSC 168
Decision Date: 20 February 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Stephen, the defendant faced charges that included murder, among other offences. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The central issue revolved around whether the defendant could be convicted of murder given that the Crown prosecutor had conceded that murder could not be proven and would not be contended for. The trial judge directed a verdict of not guilty on the count of murder, allowing the trial to proceed on the lesser charge of manslaughter.

The legal issue before the court was whether the judge could direct a verdict of not guilty on the murder charge when the Crown prosecutor had conceded that the Crown could not prove the murder charge. The defendant argued that the Crown’s concession should result in an outright acquittal on the murder charge. The Crown contended that the judge could not direct a verdict of not guilty in such circumstances because it would usurp the jury's role. The court had to determine whether the judge's action was within their power and if the trial should continue on the lesser charge of manslaughter.

The Supreme Court of Victoria found that the judge was correct in directing a verdict of not guilty on the count of murder. The court reasoned that when the Crown prosecutor concedes that the Crown cannot prove the murder charge, it removes the issue of guilt on the murder count from the jury’s consideration. The court held that the judge had the authority to direct such a verdict, ensuring that the trial proceeded fairly on the remaining charge of manslaughter. The court ultimately determined that the judge’s actions were appropriate, and the trial continued on the lesser charge.

Orders