CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - Reference by Attorney-General under s.669A(2) Criminal Code - Manslaughter - Defence matters - Accident under second limb of s 23 Criminal Code - Whether when a person is charged with manslaughter it is necessary for the Crown to prove beyond reasonable doubt that an ordinary person in the position of the accused could have foreseen that death was a probable or likely consequence of his or her actions - Whether when a person is charged with manslaughter it is a correct direction of law that an accused is not responsible for a death which follows from his or her actions if death was such an unlikely consequence of his or her actions that an ordinary person could not reasonably have foreseen it - Desirability of test in positive form discussed.

S.23 Criminal Code.
R v. Van den Bemd [1995] 1 Qd. R. 401.
R v. Van den Bemd (1994) 179 C.L.R. 137.
Kaporonovski v. The Queen (1975) 133 C.L.R. 209.
R v. Knutsen [1963] Qd. R. 157.
R v. Whiting [1995] 2 Qd. R. 199.
R v. Ellem (1994) 75 A. Crim. R. 370.

Counsel: Mr M.J. Byrne QC for the Attorney-General.

Mr T. Carmody for the Respondent.

Solicitors: Director of Public Prosecutions for the Attorney-General.

Legal Aid Office (Qld) for the Respondent.

Hearing Date: 11 October, 1995

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - THE COURT

Judgment delivered 16/07/1996

This is a reference by the Attorney-General under s.669A(2) of the Criminal Code. Two points of law are referred for this Court's consideration and opinion:
1.        Whether when a person is charged with manslaughter it is necessary for the Crown to prove beyond reasonable doubt that an ordinary person in the position of the accused could have foreseen that death was a probable or likely consequence of his or her actions?
2.        Whether when a person is charged with manslaughter it is a correct direction of law that an accused is not responsible for a death which follows from his or her actions if death was such an unlikely consequence of his or her actions that an ordinary person could not reasonably have foreseen it?
The circumstances in which these questions have arisen from the trial of the accused Taiters may be briefly stated.
On 24 December 1993 a fight occurred in the street between Taiters and a man called Cooper. Cooper suffered certain injuries and died in consequence on 3 January 1994. In the course of the fight Taiters had struck Cooper causing him to fall heavily and strike his head on the cement footpath.   Cooper 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 Taiters

Details

AGLC: R v Taiters [1996] QCA 232
Case: [1996] QCA 232
Decision Date: 16 July 1996

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Taiters involved the Attorney-General of Australia making a reference to the High Court under section 669A(2) of the Criminal Code. The central issue was the interpretation of the provisions related to manslaughter, specifically concerning the foreseeability of death as a consequence of the accused's actions. The Attorney-General sought clarification on two main points: whether the Crown must prove beyond reasonable doubt that an ordinary person in the accused's position could have foreseen that death was a probable or likely consequence, and whether the law correctly states that the accused is not responsible if death was an unlikely consequence that an ordinary person could not reasonably foresee. The case raised significant questions about the standards of foreseeability required in manslaughter charges.

The High Court considered the legal issues raised by the Attorney-General's reference. It examined whether the established principles of manslaughter required the Crown to prove that death was a probable or likely consequence of the accused's actions, or if it was sufficient that death was an unlikely consequence that an ordinary person could not foresee. The Court deliberated on the appropriate legal test to be applied, weighing the necessity for certainty in criminal liability against the practicalities of applying a foreseeability standard in manslaughter cases. The Court ultimately focused on the proper interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Criminal Code and the principles of criminal responsibility.

The Court found that the Crown does not need to prove that death was a probable or likely consequence of the accused's actions to secure a manslaughter conviction. Instead, it is sufficient that death was an unlikely consequence which an ordinary person could not reasonably foresee. The Court held that the law correctly states that an accused is not responsible for a death that follows from their actions if death was such an unlikely consequence that an ordinary person could not foresee it. The Court emphasised the importance of ensuring that criminal liability is based on principles of reasonable foreseeability, rather than a strict probability of death.

The Court's decision addressed the Attorney-General's reference, providing clarity on the legal standards applicable to manslaughter charges. It confirmed that the foreseeability test for manslaughter should be applied in a manner that considers whether death was an unlikely consequence that an ordinary person could not foresee, rather than requiring proof of a probable or likely outcome. The Court's reasoning aimed to balance the principles of criminal responsibility with the practicalities of applying the law in manslaughter cases.

Orders

Orders of the court

N ANSWER TO THE QUESTIONS OF THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S REFERENCE UNDER S.669A(2) OF THE CRIMINAL CODE:

1. NO.

2. YES.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Citations

AGLC Citation

R v Taiters [1996] QCA 232

Most Recent Citation

R v Condon [2010] QCA 117

Cases citing this decision · 9 of 9 shown

R v Hanley
[2020] QCA 276

…v R (1989) 18 NSWLR 74, cited R v Sun [2018] QCA 24, cited R v Taiters [1997] 1 Qd R 333; [1996] QCA 232, cited R v Tink [2020] QCA 193, cited SKA v The Queen (2011) 243 CLR 400; [2011] HCA 13, followed Vallance v The Queen (1961) 108 CLR 56; [1961] HCA 42, cited Zoneff v The Queen (2000) 200 CLR 234; [2000] HCA…
R v Irwin
[2017] QCA 2

…R v Coomer [2010] QCA 6, cited R v Stuart [2005] QCA 138, cited R v Taiters; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) [1997] 1 Qd R 333; [1996] QCA 232, cited SKA v The Queen (2011) 243 CLR 400; [2011] HCA 13, followed COUNSEL: S Holt QC for the appellant M B Lehane for the respondent SOLICITORS: Nyst Legal for the appell…
R v Wyborn
[2013] QCA 400

…ers [1990] 1 Qd R 92, cited R v Taiters; ex parte Attorney-General [1997] 1 Qd R 333; [1996] QCA 232, cited Royall v The Queen (1991) 172 CLR 378; [1991] HCA 27, cited COUNSEL: J J Allen for the appellant B G Campbell for the respondent SOLICITORS: Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant Director of Public Prosecu…
R v McCallum
[2013] QCA 254

…e Attorney-General [1997] 1 Qd R 333; [1996] QCA 232, cited R v Van Den Bemd (1994) 179 CLR 137; [1994] HCA 56, cited Stevens v The Queen (2007) 227 CLR 319; [2005] HCA 65, distinguished COUNSEL: A Boe with A Anderson for the appellant/applicant M R Byrne QC for the respondent SOLICITORS: Nyst Lawyers for the app…
Schmidt v The State of Western Australia
[2013] WASCA 201 Para 20

…(excluding, in each case, possibilities that are no more than remote and speculative): Raux [84] (Buss JA); R v Taiters; ex parte Attorney‑General [1996] QCA 232; [1997] 1 Qd R 333, 338 (Macrossan CJ, Pincus JA & Lee J).…
R v Hung
[2012] QCA 341

…0 A Crim R 105; [1995] QCA 202, cited R v Taiters; ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) [1997] 1 Qd R 333; [1996] QCA 232, considered R v Trieu [2008] QCA 28, considered COUNSEL: J M McInnes for the appellant B J Power for the respondent SOLICITORS: Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant Director of Public Prosecution…
R v Wardle
[2011] QCA 339

…[2005] QCA 138, cited R v Taiters; ex parte Attorney-General [1997] 1 Qd R 333; [1996] QCA 232, cited COUNSEL: P E Smith, with K M Hillard, for the appellant D C Boyle for the respondent SOLICITORS: Jones & Company on behalf of the appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent…
R v Dykstra
[2011] QCA 175

…] SASC 5653, cited R v Roulston [1976] 2 NZLR 644, considered R v Taiters; ex parte Attorney-General [1997] 1 Qd R 333; [1996] QCA 232, applied Zoneff v The Queen (2000) 200 CLR 234; [2000] HCA 28, applied COUNSEL: M J Byrne QC for the appellant R G Martin SC for the respondent SOLICITORS: Connolly Suthers for th…
R v Condon
[2010] QCA 117

…v The Queen (2002) 213 CLR 606; [2002] HCA 53, cited R v Taiters; ex parte Attorney-General [1997] 1 Qd R 333; [1996] QCA 232, applied Weiss v The Queen (2005) 224 CLR 300; [2005] HCA 81 cited COUNSEL: J Henry for the appellant M B Lehane for the respondent SOLICITORS: Anderson Telford Lawyers for the appellant…

View all 9 citing cases →

Cases cited in this decision · 3 of 3 shown

R v Van Den Bemd
[1994] HCA 56

…easons there delivered by Gibbs J. have acquired additional weight as a result of the pronouncement of the majority of the High Court in Van Den Bemd (1994) 179 CLR 137. There the High Court refused special leave to appeal from a judgment of this Court. In refusing special leave the majority appeared content to accep…
Kaporonovski v The Queen
[1973] HCA 35

…S.23 Criminal Code . R v. Van den Bemd [1995] 1 Qd. R. 401. R v. Van den Bemd (1994) 179 C.L.R. 137. Kaporonovski v. The Queen (1975) 133 C.L.R. 209. R v. Knutsen [1963] Qd. R. 157. R v. Whiting [1995] 2 Qd. R. 199. R v. Ellem (1994) 75 A. Crim. R. 370.…
Vallance v The Queen
[1961] HCA 42

…This last statement is in obvious conformity with the words of the test propounded by Gibbs J. (It should be noted that the original uncorrected reasons of the Court of Appeal read "Bankier's death was such an unlikely consequence ..." which is the form in which the quotation appears at page 138 of …

Legislation cited in this decision · 0

No legislation cited in this case.