R v Stephen (No. 3)

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.