Legal Research
Cases
R v Williamson

R v Williamson

Case [1996] SASC 5954 20 December 1996

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

COURT IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA DOYLE CJ, MATHESON AND DUGGAN JJ

CWDS
Criminal law - murder - appeal against conviction - victim stabbed in chest - appellant under influence of a drug and in a stressed condition at relevant time - counsel for defence at trial conceding appellant guilty of manslaughter - duty of judge to direct on acquittal where defence does not seek acquittal - jury informed that the critical issue was whether they were satisfied that the appellant knew he had a knife in his hand at the time he punched the deceased - whether judge should have withdrawn issue of voluntariness from the jury in the circumstances - whether directions on intoxication adequate - no proper basis to leave self defence to the jury - appeal allowed and order for retrial. Pemble v The Queen (1971) 124 CLR 107; The Queen v Falconer
(1991) 171 CLR 30; Duffy v The Queen [1981] WAR 72; Kapronovski v The Queen (1973) 133 CLR 209; R v O'Connor (1980) 146 CLR 64; R v Martin
(1983) 32 SASR 419 and on appeal (1984) 58 ALJR 217; R v Shinner (1993) 173 LSJS 384; R v Wingfield (1994) 176 LSJS 14; R v Machin CCA
5814 delivered 20/9/1996, (1996) 68 SASR 526; R v Cooke (1985) 39 SASR 225; The Queen v Nicholls CCA Unrep Jt 576 delivered 22/3/1988; R v Ball, Bunce and Calliss (1991) 56 SASR 126, applied.

HRNG ADELAIDE, 18 November 1996 #DATE 20:12:1996

Counsel for appellant: Mrs M E Shaw QC

Solicitors for appellant: Dixon Gallasch Pty Ltd

Counsel for respondent: Mr P J L Rofe QC

Solicitors for respondent: DPP (SA)

ORDER

JUDGE1 DOYLE CJ

1. This is an appeal against a conviction for murder consequent upon the verdict of a jury.

1. I adopt the summary of the events in question to be found in the judgment of Matheson J, and I adopt also his summary of the manner in which counsel at the trial dealt with the case.

Failure to leave possibility of acquittal

1. It is well established that a jury should not be told that it cannot acquit: Pemble v The Queen (1971) 124 CLR 107 at 117 Barwick CJ, and 132-133 Menzies J, at 141 Owen J.

1. In the present case I consider that, undoubtedly as a result of the manner in which counsel for the defence conducted the case, the jury is likely to have thought that it was not open to acquit. In saying this I do not intend any criticism of counsel for the defence. There is no suggestion that he was not acting upon his client's instructions, and one can understand the tactical judgment which would have led him to conduct the case as he did. In those circumstances it was natural for the summing up to be constructed as it was, but as the decision in Pemble reminds us, the jury must…

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 Williamson

Details

AGLC: R v Williamson [1996] SASC 5954
Case: [1996] SASC 5954
Decision Date: 20 December 1996

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Court of Criminal Appeal of South Australia heard an appeal against a conviction for murder. The appellant admitted that he caused the death of the deceased, Michael Joseph Heinrich, by stabbing him with a knife, but claimed that he did not realise he had the knife in his hand at the time of the incident. The jury convicted the appellant of murder, but the Court of Criminal Appeal set aside the conviction and ordered a retrial. The Court found that the trial judge's summing up was inadequate in several respects. Firstly, the summing up did not adequately distinguish between the knowledge that the knife was in the hand of the accused and the specific mental states that had to be proved for a conviction of murder. Secondly, the summing up did not adequately address the effect of intoxication on the accused's ability to form the necessary intent for a conviction of murder. Thirdly, the summing up did not adequately address the issue of voluntariness and whether the act which caused death was voluntary. Finally, the summing up did not adequately address the issue of self-defence, which the Court found was not necessary to leave to the jury given the evidence presented. The Court found that the inadequate summing up had the potential to mislead the jury and therefore ordered a retrial.

Orders