R v Trimmings - [2021] NSWDC 156

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Trimmings [2021] NSWDC 156
Hearing dates: 27 January 2021 and by submissions
Date of orders: 03 February 2021
Decision date: 03 February 2021
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Grant DCJ
Decision:
I find the accused not guilty.

Catchwords:
Criminal law – judge alone trial – manslaughter –no obvious signs of injury- ‘sorry business’ – domestic relationship – expert evidence – relationship evidence – not guilty verdict

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act1900
Evidence Act 1995

Cases Cited:
Barca v The Queen(1975) 133 CLR 82; [1975]HCA 42
Frawley (1992) 69 A Crim R 208
Harriman v The Queen (1989) 167 CLR 590
Peacock v The King (1911) 13 CLR 619; [1911] HCA 66
Plomp v The Queen (1963)110 CLR 234; [1963] HCA 44
R v AM (2000) 117 A Crim R 176
R v PL 261 ALR 365; [2009] NSW CCA 256
R v Toki (2000) 116 A Crim R 536; [2000] NSWSC 999
The Queen v Baden‑Clay (2016) 258 CLR 308; [2016] HCA 35
Thomas v The Queen (1960) 102 CLR 584; [1960] HCA 2
Wilson v The Queen (1970) 123 CLR 334

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Greg Trimmings (Accused)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr Pincott (DPP)
Mr Wilson SC
Solicitors:
Mr Thomas (DPP)
Ms Somerville

File Number(s): 2018/00135821

Judgment

HIS HONOUR: I find Greg Trimmings not guilty and I enter a verdict of acquittal in relation to the record. The following are my reasons for doing so.

INTRODUCTION

The accused, Gregory Trimmings, was in a domestic relationship with Ingrid Driver. In November 2017, they moved to Albury from South Australia. Eventually they were housed at 24/398 Olive Street, Albury. They resided in a one‑bedroom apartment. At 7.37am on 30 April 2018, the accused called triple‑0 and said to the operator that:

“There is a lady there. She got - she is, like, unconscious, and, like, blood coming out of the mouth … or nose or something … and then her grandmother died, and she was knocking her head, like headbutting the wall.”

He told the operator that he had left the address and was not able to go back and help her. Police and ambulance responded to the call, locating the deceased lying on a sofa bed in the unit. There was an amount of blood on the pillow and an area near the deceased. She was unconscious.
At marker D7, the door frame of the bathroom, there was blood of the deceased. There were no obvious signs of injury, but the blood from the mouth/nose indicated a suspected head injury. The deceased was taken from the unit to the Albury hospital. There was no obvious blood or damage to the walls of the residence other than at marker D7.
The deceased was pronounced dead at Albury Hospital at 7.30pm on 30 April 2018. The direct cause of death was a right subdural haemorrhage. Other significant conditions contributing to the death were alcoholic liver…

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 Trimmings

Details

AGLC: R v Trimmings [2021] NSWDC 156
Case: [2021] NSWDC 156
Decision Date: 03 February 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Trimmings involved a man who was on trial for manslaughter, after the death of his partner in what appeared to be an incident of domestic violence. The matter was heard by a judge alone, without a jury, in the relevant court. The key issue was whether the accused was guilty of manslaughter, given the absence of any obvious signs of injury on the deceased.

The court had to determine whether the evidence presented, including expert and relationship evidence, was sufficient to prove the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The accused argued that the death was an unfortunate accident, and that there were no signs of intentional harm. The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence, including the nature of the relationship between the accused and the deceased, and expert testimony on the likelihood of accidental death in such circumstances.

After considering all the evidence, the judge concluded that there was insufficient proof to establish the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The judge accepted that the death was a tragic event, but found that it could not be proven that the accused had intentionally or recklessly caused the death. The judge accepted the accused's version of events, that the death was a "sorry business" but not a result of any deliberate or reckless act on his part.

The court found the accused not guilty of manslaughter. The judge acknowledged the tragic nature of the incident but determined that the prosecution had not met the burden of proof required for a conviction. The accused was acquitted, and the court's decision was final.

Orders

Orders of the court

I find the accused not guilty.

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Trimmings [2021] NSWDC 156
Hearing dates:	27 January 2021 and by submissions
Date of orders:	03 February 2021
Decision date:	03 February 2021
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Grant DCJ
Decision:	I find the accused not guilty.
Catchwords:	Criminal law – judge alone trial – manslaughter –no obvious signs of injury- ‘sorry business’ – domestic relationship – expert evidence – relationship evidence – not guilty verdict
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act1900 Evidence Act 1995
Cases Cited:	Barca v The Queen(1975) 133 CLR 82; [1975]HCA 42 Frawley (1992) 69 A Crim R 208 Harriman v The Queen (1989) 167 CLR 590 Peacock v The King (1911) 13 CLR 619; [1911] HCA 66 Plomp v The Queen (1963)110 CLR 234; [1963] HCA 44 R v AM (2000) 117 A Crim R 176 R v PL 261 ALR 365; [2009] NSW CCA 256 R v Toki (2000) 116 A Crim R 536; [2000] NSWSC 999 The Queen v Baden‑Clay (2016) 258 CLR 308; [2016] HCA 35 Thomas v The Queen (1960) 102 CLR 584; [1960] HCA 2 Wilson v The Queen (1970) 123 CLR 334
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Regina (Crown) Greg Trimmings (Accused)
Representation:	Counsel: Mr Pincott (DPP) Mr Wilson SC Solicitors: Mr Thomas (DPP) Ms Somerville
File Number(s):	2018/00135821