Reid v The Queen

The case of Reid v The Queen involved the defendant who was convicted of manslaughter by criminal negligence. The defendant had bashed his de facto wife on the head with a wine cup while both were heavily intoxicated. This action caused her serious blood loss, and he left her to die without seeking medical or other assistance. The case was heard in the court of appeal, where several significant legal issues were addressed. The first issue was whether it was open to the jury to convict the defendant of manslaughter by criminal negligence. The second issue was whether the verdict was unsafe and unsatisfactory. Additionally, the court considered whether the count of intentionally causing injury included the allegation of recklessly causing injury.

The court examined the legal precedents, applying the principles from R v Salisbury and distinguishing R v Wilson. It was held that the jury was entitled to consider the charge of manslaughter by criminal negligence. The court also ruled that the verdict was not unsafe or unsatisfactory. Regarding the issue of including offences in the count of intentionally causing injury, the court concluded that the allegation of recklessly causing injury was not included, following the principles established in R v Salisbury. The court further examined the practice and procedure concerning amendments to the presentment and whether it was permissible to amend the presentment after the accused had been put in charge of the jury and after the jury had retired to consider the verdict.

In addressing these procedural issues, the court referred to R v Martin and Reg v Johal, while also considering R v Hoser and R v Ernst. The court held that it was not open to amend the presentment after the jury had retired to consider the verdict. However, the court did observe that in certain circumstances, it may be desirable to re-arraign the accused following an amendment. Finally, the court considered the sentencing issue, specifically whether the judge had erred in treating the applicant's acceptance of the victim's rejections of offers of assistance as an aggravating circumstance or an absence of a mitigating circumstance. The court also examined whether the sentence of five years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of three years was manifestly excessive.

The court concluded that there was no error in the judge's treatment of the circumstances and that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. Consequently, the applications for leave to appeal against the conviction and sentence were dismissed.