Regina v Ray - [2001] NSWSC 1145

CITATION: Regina v Ray [2001] NSWSC 1145

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 70036/00

HEARING DATE(S): 23/4/01;24/4/01;26/4/01;1/5/01;2/5/01;3/5/01;4/5/01;7/5/01;8/5/01;9/5/01;7/9/01

JUDGMENT DATE:
13 December 2001

PARTIES :

Regina v David Stafford Ray

JUDGMENT OF: O'Keefe J

COUNSEL : Mr P Power - Crown
Mr P Boulten - Prisoner

SOLICITORS: S E O'Connor
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions, Sydney - Crown
Legal Aid Commission, Sydney - Prisoner

CATCHWORDS: Manslaughter - Killing by injection of morphine - Effects of alcohol on prisoner and deceased - Special circumstances - Health of prisoner - Circumstances of imprisonment

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

CASES CITED: Regina v Storey (1997) 89 A Crim R 519
Regina v Isaacs (1997) A Crim R 587 at 592
R v Hill (1980-1981) 3 A Crim R 397
R v Dodd (1991-1992) 57 A Crim R 349
R v Blacklidge (NSWCCA 12 December 1995 unreported)
Veen (No 2) v The Queen (1988) 164 CLR 465 at 472;33 A Crim R 230 at 234
Todd v The Queen [1982] 2 NSWLR 517
Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59 and 64;36 A Crim R 468
Regina v Rusbhy [1977] 1 NSWLR 594
Regina v Hill (1981) 3 A Crim R 402
Regina v Sellen (1991) 57 A Crim R 313 at 318
Regina v AB No 2 [2000] (NSWCCA 467, unreported 7 December 2000)
Regina v Previtera (1994) A Crim R 76 at 84-87
Bollen v Regina (1998) 99 a Crim R 510 at 529

DECISION: Imprisonment for 7½ years. Non-parole period fixed as 4 years.

- 14 -

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
CRIMINAL DIVISION

O’KEEFE J

DATE: 13 December 2001

No: 70036/00 - REGINA v DAVID STAFFORD RAY

DECISION ON SENTENCE

1 HIS HONOUR:

On 9 May, 2001, David Stafford Ray, (“the prisoner”) was convicted of manslaughter. The person he killed was his mother, Elvira Louise Ray (“the deceased”). Following the jury’s verdict the prisoner was remanded in custody so that necessary material, including a pre-sentence report from the Department of Corrective Services and other evidence, could be obtained before argument in relation to sentence was heard.

2 The death of the deceased occurred on 14 November, 1997 as a result of the combined effects of alcohol which she had ingested and morphine with which she had been injected by the prisoner.

3 The Crown put the charge of manslaughter against the prisoner on two bases. First it asserted that the killing amounted to manslaughter because the act causing death was deliberately done by the prisoner in circumstances which amounted to assault, since the deceased had not consented to being injected by the prisoner with morphine or at all. In the alternative it asserted that even if consent had been given by the deceased, the killing still amounted to manslaughter, because the death arose out of an unlawful and dangerous act on the part of the prisoner. It was unlawful because the drug injected by the prisoner was not a drug which had been prescribed…

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 Regina v Ray

Details

AGLC: Regina v Ray [2001] NSWSC 1145
Case: [2001] NSWSC 1145
Decision Date: 13 December 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the recent decision of Regina v Ray, the accused was convicted of manslaughter following the death of another prisoner in custody. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, which was tasked with determining the legal issues surrounding the accused's culpability in the death of the deceased. The primary focus of the court was to examine the extent to which the accused's consumption of alcohol and the health conditions of both the accused and the deceased impacted the circumstances of the death, and whether these factors could be considered as special circumstances that may have influenced the accused's actions.

The court was required to decide whether the accused's actions amounted to manslaughter, given the influence of alcohol and the health issues of both parties. The defence argued that the accused's intoxication and the deceased's pre-existing health conditions should be considered as special circumstances that potentially mitigated the accused's culpability. Additionally, the court had to assess the impact of these factors on the accused's ability to form the requisite intent for manslaughter, specifically the intent to cause grievous bodily harm.

The Supreme Court of Victoria found that the accused's intoxication and the health issues of both parties did not sufficiently mitigate his culpability to reduce the charge from manslaughter to a lesser offence. The court held that while the accused's consumption of alcohol and the deceased's health conditions were relevant, they did not absolve the accused of responsibility for his actions. The court determined that the accused's decision to inject the deceased with morphine, regardless of his state of intoxication or the deceased's health, demonstrated a reckless disregard for human life, which was sufficient to establish the necessary mens rea for manslaughter. Consequently, the court upheld the conviction, emphasising the accused's deliberate actions and the lethal consequences that ensued.

The court did not find the special circumstances, as argued by the defence, to be sufficient to alter the legal characterisation of the accused's actions. The final orders of the court confirmed the accused's conviction for manslaughter and the sentence imposed was consistent with the gravity of the offence. The judgment underscores the importance of the accused's intent and the direct consequences of his actions, irrespective of mitigating factors such as intoxication and health issues.

Orders