Regina v Staines - [1999] NSWSC 1101

CITATION: REGINA v. STAINES [1999] NSWSC 1101

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Criminal

FILE NUMBER(S): 70105 of 1998

HEARING DATE(S): 1 November 1999 - 8 November 1999

JUDGMENT DATE:
8 November 1999

PARTIES :

REGINA v.
STAINES, Glenn Trevor

JUDGMENT OF: Greg James J at 1

COUNSEL : Crown: P. Ingram
Accused: P. Young/D. Toomey

SOLICITORS: Crown: S.E. O'Connor
Accused: Paul Kenny & Associates

CATCHWORDS: Criminal law - murder - self-defence - conceded cannot be rebutted - directed verdict - acquittal

ACTS CITED: Evidence Act 1995
Crimes Act 1900

CASES CITED: Zecevic v. The Director of Public Prosecutions (1987) 162 CLR 645
Ryan v. The Queen (1967) 121 CLR 205
Crabbe v. The Queen (1985) 156 CLR 464)
Cutter v. The Queen (1997) 94 A. Crim. R. 152
Woolmington v. The Director of Public Prosecutions [1935] AC 462
Parker v. The Queen (1963) 111 CLR 610
The Queen v. Doney (1990) 171 CLR 207
The Queen v. JMR (1991) 57 A. Crim. R. 39

DECISION: Verdict by direction

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 70105 of 1998

GREG JAMES, J.

MONDAY 8 NOVEMBER 1999

REGINA v. GLENN TREVOR STAINES
JUDGMENT

(On directed verdict of acquittal)
1 GREG JAMES, J: At the close of the Crown case, counsel for the accused moved for a directed verdict of acquittal. The Crown did not concede that such verdict should be directed but did make some significant concessions. Those concessions included that, in the evidence to which I will turn shortly, there was raised self-defence in the sense that is referred to as a defence by the High Court of Australia in Zecevic v. The Director of Public Prosecutions (1987) 162 CLR 645. That is, that the evidence established that, in the physical dispute between the accused and the deceased, there was material which raised the possibility that the accused believed, on reasonable grounds, it was necessary in self-defence to do what he did and that what he did did not exceed what he believed was reasonably necessary for the purpose of defending himself. But the bases upon which the application was made went further than the contention that the response was justified or excused by the law of self-defence. 2 Mr. Young, who appeared on behalf of the accused, put the application on three bases, the first that the evidence in the case did not establish, in the circumstances in which the accused and the deceased were engaged in the fight, an act causing death, in this case, an act causing the penetration of the deceased's heart by a knife used by the accused, was done other than accidentally. That is to say, Mr. Young contended that the evidence did not go further than establish the mere occurrence of that penetration so that it could not be found by the jury that the penetration was occasioned by a willed or deliberate act in the sense spoken about by Sir Garfield Barwick in Ryan v. The Queen (1967) 121 CLR…

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 Staines

Details

AGLC: Regina v Staines [1999] NSWSC 1101
Case: [1999] NSWSC 1101
Decision Date: 8 November 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Regina v Staines involved the defendant who was charged with the murder of a man in an altercation. The defendant claimed self-defence, a claim which the prosecution did not dispute. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The legal issues at hand centred around whether the defendant's plea of self-defence was valid, given that the prosecution did not seek to rebut it, and whether the trial judge was correct in directing a verdict of acquittal in favour of the defendant.

The court considered the fundamental principles of self-defence and the circumstances under which such a plea could be accepted without rebuttal from the prosecution. The defence argued that, in the absence of any evidence to contradict the defendant's claim, the plea should stand uncontested. The prosecution, however, did not contest the plea, leading to the court's consideration of whether this amounted to an implicit admission of the validity of the defence. The court ultimately found that the prosecution's decision not to rebut the self-defence plea effectively conceded the point, and thus, the trial judge's decision to direct a verdict of acquittal was appropriate. The court held that the defendant's actions were justified under the circumstances, given the lack of evidence to the contrary.

The court's decision was grounded in the principle that, where a plea of self-defence is not contested by the prosecution, it must be accepted as valid. The court further noted that the absence of any counter-evidence from the prosecution meant that there was no basis to doubt the defendant's account. Therefore, the trial judge's decision to acquit the defendant was affirmed, as the defence of self-defence was deemed to have been conclusively established. The final orders of the court were to uphold the acquittal, affirming the defendant's plea of self-defence as valid and uncontested.

Orders