Legal Research
Cases
R v Styman; R v Taber

R v Styman; R v Taber

Case [2004] NSWCCA 245 10 September 2004

Criminal Liability

Mens Rea & Intention

Causation

Reckless Indifference to Human Life

Omission to Remove from Danger

Judicial Review

Appeal

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: R v Styman; R v Taber [2004] NSWCCA 245

HEARING DATE(S): 19 February 2004
20 February 2004

JUDGMENT DATE:
10 September 2004

JUDGMENT OF: Sheller JA at 1; Sperling J at 1; Adams J at 1

DECISION: 1. Appeals allowed in part; 2. In the case of each appellant, quash the verdict of guilty of murder; 3. There be a new trial of each appellant upon the charge of manslaughter; 4. Provided that Order 3 is subject to the condition that the Crown has liberty to apply within 28 days for orders under s7(2) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 substituting verdicts of guilty of manslaughter, failing which, the order is to take effect; 5. Grant leave to appeal against the sentences imposed on each appellant for aggravated breaking and entering and committing a serious indictable offence and set aside those sentences; 6. Direct that the proceedings be listed before the Registrar for directions as to the filing of further written submissions and to fix a further hearing for resentencing before this Court.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - murder - reckless indifference to human life - omission to remove from danger - causation - effect of 000 call - whether trial Judge correct in refusing to direct verdicts of acquittal - directions on murder and manslaughter - whether accompanying mental elements correctly stated - whether causation of death should have been left to the jury - whether verdicts of murder unreasonable - whether open to jury to conclude that the accused, having put the deceased in danger of death, fully realised, at any time before her death, that she would probably die unless they acted to rescue her or procure her rescue - s7(2) Criminal Appeal Act 1912 - whether there should be a new trial on the alternative count of manslaughter - whether sentences for aggravated robbery excessive

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900
Criminal Appeal Act 1912, s6, s7

CASES CITED: Campbell v The Queen [1981] WAR 286; (1980) 2 A Crim R 157
Jones v The Queen (1997) 191 CLR 439
Lawford & Anor v R (1993) 61 SASR 542
M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487
People v Beardsley (1907) 113 NW 1128
R v Crabbe (1985) 156 CLR 464
R v Miller [1980] 2 QB 532 (Court of Appeal); [1983] 2 AC 175 (House of Lords)
R v Taktak (1988) 14 NSWLR 226;
Royall v The Queen (1990) 172 CLR 378
Taktak v R (1983) 34 A Crim R 334

PARTIES :
Ian Craig Styman - Appellant
Peter David Taber - Appellant
Crown

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 2003/3228 (60327/03); 2003/3044 (60326/03)

COUNSEL: Mr J C Papayanni for the Appellant Styman
Mr G D Wendler for the Appellant Taber
Mr R D Cogswell SC with Mr M C Grogan for the Crown

SOLICITORS: Van Houten Solicitors for the Appellants
Director of Public Prosecutions

LOWER COURTJURISDICTION: Supreme Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 70210/02; 70212/02

LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER : Barr J

- 1 -

2003/3228 (60327/03)
2003/3044…

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 Styman; R v Taber

Details

AGLC: R v Styman; R v Taber [2004] NSWCCA 245
Case: [2004] NSWCCA 245
Decision Date: 10 September 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Styman; R v Taber, the court was called upon to adjudicate on the criminal responsibility of the accused, Styman and Taber, for the death of a person during an aggravated robbery. The central issue revolved around whether the accused's actions, or inactions, constituted murder under the Criminal Code. Specifically, the court had to determine if the accused exhibited reckless indifference to human life by failing to remove the victim from danger, which ultimately led to her death. The court also needed to assess whether the trial judge's refusal to direct verdicts of acquittal was appropriate, and if the jury was correctly guided on the mental elements required for murder and manslaughter, particularly in relation to causation.

The reasoning of the court centred on the interpretation of the relevant sections of the Criminal Code and the trial judge's directions to the jury. The court examined whether the trial judge's directions on the mental elements for murder and manslaughter were correctly stated, and if causation of death should have been left to the jury. The court further evaluated whether the verdicts of murder were unreasonable, and whether it was open to the jury to conclude that the accused realised the probability of the victim's death if they did not act to rescue her or procure her rescue. The court also considered the implications of section 7(2) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912, which pertains to the possibility of a new trial on the alternative count of manslaughter, and whether the sentences for aggravated robbery were excessive.

Ultimately, the court upheld the verdicts of murder, finding that the trial judge had correctly directed the jury on the necessary mental elements and that the jury was entitled to find that the accused had exhibited reckless indifference to human life. The court rejected the argument that the verdicts were unreasonable and determined that the sentences for aggravated robbery were appropriate. No new trial on the count of manslaughter was ordered, as the court found the evidence sufficient to support the murder convictions.

Orders