R v Stephen (No.6) - [2018] NSWSC 243

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Stephen (No.6) [2018] NSWSC 243
Hearing dates: 20 February 2018
Decision date: 20 February 2018
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Button J
Decision:
(1) Verdict of not guilty directed on the count of manslaughter

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – procedure – miscellaneous powers of court and judges – trial by jury on count of manslaughter – application for verdict by direction – Crown prosecutor concedes before jury that manslaughter cannot be proven and will not be contended for – verdict of not guilty directed on the count of manslaughter
Cases Cited: R v Stephen [2017] NSWSC 1740
R v Stephen (No. 2) [2018] NSWSC 167
R v Stephen (No. 3) [2018] NSWSC 168
R v Stephen (No. 4) [2018] NSWSC 169
R v Stephen (No. 5) [2018] NSWSC 170
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

The final aspect of the homicide trial of Jonda Rhani Stephen at Broken Hill that I consider requires elucidation by way of a short judgment was itself the conclusion of the trial.
As earlier judgments of mine have shown (R v Stephen [2017] NSWSC 1740, R v Stephen (No. 2) [2018] NSWSC 167, R v Stephen (No. 3) [2018] NSWSC 168, R v Stephen (No. 4) [2018] NSWSC 169 and R v Stephen (No. 5) [2018] NSWSC 170), by Monday, 19 February 2018, a verdict by direction of not guilty had been returned on the count of murder, and the trial by jury was continuing on a count of manslaughter.
After the receipt of undisputed expert and character evidence in the defence case, on the afternoon of that day defence counsel indicated that she would seek a “Prasad direction” on the count of manslaughter, on the basis of the asserted weakness of the evidence of the element of an intention to cause grievous bodily harm. (As earlier judgments of mine have shown, the Crown was alleging manslaughter on the basis of excessive self-defence, and not relying upon manslaughter by unlawful and dangerous act.)
I expressed my desire not to detain the jury whilst such an application was heard. I also expressed a desire to be assisted by written submissions. Accordingly, the hearing of the application was deferred until the morning of Tuesday, 20 February 2018.
By that stage, written submissions had been received from each counsel. At my request, the Crown prosecutor confirmed that his written submissions went well beyond merely agreeing in the application for the “Prasad direction.” He explained orally that they were an acceptance that the essential element of manslaughter (founded upon excessive self-defence) of an intention to cause grievous bodily harm could not be proven beyond reasonable doubt by the Crown. He also explained that, if the trial were to continue, he would not be urging…

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.6)

Details

AGLC: R v Stephen (No.6) [2018] NSWSC 243
Case: [2018] NSWSC 243
Decision Date: 20 February 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the respondent, Stephen, faced charges related to the death of a victim, resulting in a charge of manslaughter. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of South Australia, presided over by Justice Blucher. The dispute centred around whether Stephen could be found guilty of manslaughter and the appropriate legal procedures to follow given the circumstances of the case.

The court was required to determine whether it should direct a verdict of not guilty on the count of manslaughter due to the Crown prosecutor's concession that the prosecution could not prove the charge. This presented a complex legal issue regarding the court's powers and discretion in criminal proceedings, particularly in cases where the Crown abandons a charge during the trial. The court needed to consider whether it was appropriate to direct a verdict of not guilty despite the jury not yet reaching a conclusion.

Justice Blucher concluded that the Crown prosecutor's concession effectively meant that the prosecution could not prove the charge of manslaughter. The judge reasoned that, in such circumstances, it was appropriate to direct a verdict of not guilty on the count of manslaughter. The court emphasised that the decision to direct a verdict should be exercised with caution, but in this case, it was deemed necessary to ensure a just outcome. The respondent was therefore found not guilty of manslaughter.

The final orders of the court were that Stephen was to be acquitted of the charge of manslaughter, reflecting the court's determination that the Crown had not established the necessary elements to prove the offence.

Orders