R v Tennant - [2019] SASC 150

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v TENNANT
Criminal Trial by Judge Alone
[2019] SASC 150
Judgment of The Honourable Justice Kelly
16 August 2019
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON - HOMICIDE - MURDER
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON - HOMICIDE - MANSLAUGHTER
CRIMINAL LAW - PROCEDURE - TRIAL HAD BEFORE JUDGE WITHOUT JURY
Criminal trial by judge alone.
The accused pleaded not guilty to the offence of murder but guilty to manslaughter. The prosecution did not accept that plea. The accused elected to be tried by a judge sitting alone. The accused, by her plea to manslaughter, admitted that she was the driver of the vehicle that hit the deceased and caused his death. She did not deny that her actions were conscious and voluntary. The issue at trial was whether, at the time she drove her car into the deceased, the accused possessed the necessary specific intent for the crime of murder.
Whether the accused intended to kill or cause grievous bodily harm to the deceased – whether the accused is guilty of manslaughter by unlawful and dangerous act.
Held:
1. The accused is not guilty of murder.
2. The accused is guilty of manslaughter by unlawful and dangerous act.
Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) s 11, referred to.

R v TENNANT
[2019] SASC 150
Criminal: Trial by Judge Alone
KELLY J.
Introduction

The accused, Adriana Betty Tennant, is charged with the crime of murder.[1] The particulars of the charge are that on 24 November 2017, at Quorn, she murdered Nathan Freer (the deceased).
[1] Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) s 11.
Upon her arraignment on the first day of the trial, the accused pleaded not guilty to murder but guilty to manslaughter. The prosecution did not accept the plea to manslaughter in answer to the charge on the Information and the trial on the charge of murder then commenced before me as a Judge sitting alone on 5 August 2019.
Facts
At about 8.00 pm on Friday, 24 November 2017 the accused and her husband, Mr Derek Tennant, were driving their white Mitsubishi Triton[2] along Park Terrace in Quorn when they passed a vehicle going in the opposite direction. That vehicle, a red coloured Holden sedan, was driven by Ms Angie Dowling, the partner of the deceased. With her in that vehicle, seated in the front passenger seat, was the deceased. Their two teenage sons were in the rear passenger seats of the vehicle. As the vehicles passed each other on Park Terrace, Mr Tennant, who was in the front passenger seat of the Mitsubishi Triton, stuck his fingers out at the vehicle driven by Ms Dowling. At the request of the deceased, Ms Dowling then performed a U‑turn and pursued the Mitsubishi Triton, which was being driven by the accused.
[2] Exhibit P9.
At that time, the accused’s vehicle had a video camera, known as a ‘dashcam’, installed on the dashboard which continuously…

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 Tennant

Details

AGLC: R v Tennant [2019] SASC 150
Case: [2019] SASC 150
Decision Date: 16 August 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Tennant involved the accused, the driver of a Mitsubishi Triton, who was charged with murder but pleaded guilty to manslaughter. The accused's husband was also in the vehicle, and the incident occurred when the accused vehicle passed another car, leading to a confrontation. The deceased, who was in the other vehicle, threw a beer bottle at the accused's vehicle, and the accused subsequently drove into the deceased, causing fatal injuries. The trial, held before a judge without a jury, focused on whether the accused intended to cause death or grievous bodily harm when she struck the deceased.

The primary legal issue in the trial was whether the accused's actions in driving into the deceased were intentional, which would constitute murder, or whether they were reckless, which would support a manslaughter conviction. The court had to determine if the accused had the requisite intent for murder or if her actions, though voluntary and conscious, were reckless and therefore amounted to manslaughter. This determination was based on the evidence, including the dashcam footage, the scene investigation, and witness testimonies, which were examined to understand the circumstances and the accused's state of mind at the moment of impact.

The court found that the accused's actions were not driven by an intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm. Instead, her decision to drive into the deceased was a result of the immediate and intense confrontation, which led to a panicked and impulsive response. The evidence, particularly the dashcam footage and the short duration of events, supported the conclusion that the accused did not have the time or the mindset to form the specific intent required for murder. Therefore, the court accepted the guilty plea to manslaughter and found that the accused's actions were reckless rather than intentional.

The court ordered that the accused be sentenced for manslaughter, reflecting the findings that while the accused's actions were voluntary and conscious, they did not meet the threshold of intent required for a murder conviction. The precise sentence was not detailed in the excerpt provided, but it was determined that the plea to manslaughter was appropriate given the circumstances and the evidence presented during the trial.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Upon her arraignment on the first day of the trial, the accused pleaded not guilty to murder but guilty to manslaughter. The prosecution did not accept the plea to manslaughter in answer to the charge on the Information and the trial on the charge of murder then commenced before me as a Judge sitting alone on 5 August 2019.Facts At about 8.00 pm on Friday, 24 November 2017 the accused and her husband, Mr Derek Tennant, were driving their white Mitsubishi Triton[2] along Park Terrace in Quorn when they passed a vehicle going in the opposite direction. That vehicle, a red coloured Holden sedan, was driven by Ms Angie Dowling, the partner of the deceased. With her in that vehicle, seated in the front passenger seat, was the deceased. Their two teenage sons were in the rear passenger seats of the vehicle. As the vehicles passed each other on Park Terrace, Mr Tennant, who was in the front passenger seat of the Mitsubishi Triton, stuck his fingers out at the vehicle driven by Ms Dowling. At the request of the deceased, Ms Dowling then performed a U‑turn and pursued the Mitsubishi Triton, which was being driven by the accused.[2] Exhibit P9. At that time, the accused’s vehicle had a video camera, known as a ‘dashcam’, installed on the dashboard which continuously recorded the view through the vehicle’s front windscreen and out onto the road. The dashcam recorded the events as they thereafter unfolded on that day. After Ms Dowling began to pursue the accused’s vehicle, the accused stopped in the middle of the road and braked. Ms Dowling stopped her vehicle behind the accused’s vehicle and the deceased exited the red Holden sedan. The deceased threw a beer bottle at the accused’s vehicle. The sound of a thud as the bottle hit the rear of the accused’s vehicle can be heard on the dashcam recording almost at the same moment that the accused began to drive off down Park Terrace again. Mr Tennant then told the accused to pull over, and the accused pulled off to the side of the road and onto the dirt verge on Park Terrace. Mr Tennant got out of the vehicle. The sound of what is presumed to be his front passenger door closing can also be heard on the dashcam recording. The accused, who remained in the vehicle, put on the vehicle’s right indicator and commenced a 270 degree turn, driving the Mitsubishi Triton directly into the deceased who was brandishing a beer bottle and approaching her vehicle. The deceased was initially thrown up onto the bonnet of the accused’s vehicle, and then fell beneath the vehicle which ran over the deceased and crashed through a chain mesh fence before coming to a stop at the bottom of an embankment amongst foliage. The deceased died very shortly thereafter from multiple injuries. At trial, the accused did not deny that she was the driver of the vehicle that hit the deceased and caused his death, nor did she deny that her actions were conscious and voluntary. The only real issue in dispute, and therefore the only real issue for me to determine, is whether it is established beyond reasonable doubt that in the moment that the vehicle driven by the accused struck the deceased, the accused intended to kill or cause grievous bodily harm to the deceased.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

I will now proceed to discuss the evidence. I will then consider the inferences I can safely draw from the evidence which I am prepared to accept. I emphasise at the outset that when I use the terms “accept”, “satisfied” or “proved” I mean accept, satisfied or proved beyond reasonable doubt.Evidence An unusual aspect of this trial is that the entire incident giving rise to the charge was recorded on dashcam footage from the Mitsubishi Triton driven by the accused.[3] From that footage, it is apparent that the entire incident occurred in less than one minute, and that from the moment the accused commenced the 270 degree turn, to the moment of impact with the deceased, a period of only approximately eight seconds elapsed. [3] Exhibit P5. I heard from a number of civilian and police witnesses. In the main, the evidence given by these witnesses was not challenged.Brevet Sergeant Rebecca Guest Brevet Sergeant Rebecca Guest, from the Major Crash Investigation Section of the South Australian Police Force, examined the scene of the incident approximately four hours after the death of the deceased. Brevet Sergeant Guest prepared a diagrammatic plan of the area to scale,[4] took a number of photographs[5] and measurements, and gave detailed evidence about her findings. Brevet Sergeant Guest’s investigation and examination of the scene was supplemented by evidence from Brevet Sergeant Allison Huppatz, a crime scene investigator, who took a number of photographs, first at the scene and later at the police impound yard.[6] Brevet Sergeant Guest said she used the dashcam footage to estimate the approximate point of impact between the Mitsubishi Triton and the deceased and marked that point on the diagrammatic plan.[7] [4] Exhibit P2.[5] Exhibit P1.[6] Exhibit P4.[7] Exhibit P2A. Brevet Sergeant Guest explained the significance, in particular, of the orientation and position of the tyre marks left by the Mitsubishi Triton prior to, and after, the approximate point of impact with the deceased. Brevet Sergeant Guest expressed the opinion that the rolling tyre marks produced by the Mitsubishi Triton did not suggest that the vehicle was out of control prior to the point of impact. She considered that the trajectory of the tyre marks left on the surface of the road was consistent with the driver’s steering input in the direction in which it was travelling. She said there was no indication of any braking at any stage. Her evidence was that, in order for the vehicle to have been placed in a straight-line trajectory toward the deceased, immediately prior to the impact with the deceased, there must have been steering input. Had the vehicle continued with the same steering input as at the commencement of the 270 degree turn, it would have followed a different trajectory to the actual tyre markings observed at the scene. She said this was indicated by the fact that just prior to the estimated point of impact, the tyre marks were slightly wider than the rest of the tyre marks, suggestive of the vehicle straightening up with a deliberate steering input.

Decision

Reasons for decision

KELLY J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: KELLY J

Full text does not contain this section.