Legal Research
Cases
Reynolds v R

Reynolds v R

Case [2015] NSWCCA 29 9 March 2015

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal
Supreme Court

New South Wales

Case Name:	REYNOLDS, Mathew v Regina
Medium Neutral Citation:	[2015] NSWCCA 29
Hearing Date(s):	3 February 2015
Date of Orders:	9 March 2015
Decision Date:	9 March 2015
Before:	Gleeson JA at [1]; Johnson J at [2]; Hall J at [3]
Decision:	(1) Leave granted to the appellant to appeal out of time. (2) Appeal dismissed.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – appeal against conviction – whether misdirection in summing up to jury –direction given by trial judge in response to jury question – direction given by trial judge on causation – meaning of phrase ‘significant and substantial’ employed in the answer of the trial judge to a jury question for purposes of causation – whether terms ‘significant’ and ‘substantial’ mean the same thing – meaning of terms ‘significant’ and ‘substantial’ – directions in question should be viewed in light of earlier directions in summing up and in the context of the case involving a substantial departure from the standard of care required of the offender - in context there direction did not amount to a misdirection -appeal dismissed - CRIMINAL LAW – manslaughter – criminal negligence - elements – causation – proper test for causation – direction given to jury in relation to causation
Cases Cited:	McAuliffe v The Queen (1995) 183 CLR 108 Osland v The Queen (1998) 197 CLR 316 R v Andrew [2000] NSWCCA 310 R v Moffatt (2000) 112 A Crim R 201; [2000] NSWCCA 174 Reg v Hennigan [1971] 3 All ER 133 Royall v The Queen (1991) 172 CLR 378
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Mathew Reynolds (Appellant)
Representation:	Counsel: D Dalton SC (Appellant) J Pickering SC (Crown) Solicitors: Heenan & Company Lawyers (Appellant) Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Respondent)
File Number(s):	2009/11028
Decision under appeal:
Court or Tribunal:	Supreme Court of NSW
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Date of Decision:	25 June 2010
Before:	Grove J
File Number(s):	2009/11028

JUDGMENT

GLEESON JA: I agree with Hall J.
JOHNSON J: I agree with Hall J.
HALL J: On 22 February 2010, the appellant, Mathew Reynolds, was indicted in respect of six counts of manslaughter and, in the alternative, to six counts of aiding and abetting dangerous navigation occasioning death.
A co-accused, Percy Small, was indicted on six counts of dangerous navigation occasioning death. The appellant and Mr Small both pleaded not guilty to each count charged and they were tried together.
On 6 April 2010 the jury returned verdicts of guilty in respect of each of the six charges of manslaughter against the appellant. Mr Small was found guilty on each of the six charges of dangerous navigation occasioning death.
On 25 June 2010 the appellant was sentenced to a total effective sentence of 7 years and 6 months with an effective non-parole period of 5 years commencing 12 February 2010. The appellant was eligible for release to parole on 11 February 2015. Mr Small was sentenced to the same effective sentence, the commencement date of which was…

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 Reynolds v R

Details

AGLC: Reynolds v R [2015] NSWCCA 29
Case: [2015] NSWCCA 29
Decision Date: 9 March 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Reynolds v R involved an appeal against the conviction of the appellant for manslaughter by criminal negligence. The High Court of Australia was tasked with determining whether there was a misdirection in the summing up to the jury, specifically concerning the trial judge’s direction on causation in response to a question from the jury. The trial judge had used the phrase “significant and substantial” in explaining the concept of causation. The appellant argued that the terms “significant” and “substantial” were not synonymous and that the trial judge's direction was misconceived.

The legal issues before the court were whether the terms “significant” and “substantial” were equivalent, and if the trial judge’s direction on causation, in the context of the case, amounted to a misdirection. The court considered the proper test for causation in criminal negligence manslaughter cases and whether the trial judge's direction, in light of earlier directions and the context of the case, correctly conveyed the legal principles. The court also examined whether the direction departed substantially from the standard of care required of the offender.

The court held that the terms “significant” and “substantial” were not necessarily identical but in the context of the trial judge’s direction, they conveyed the same meaning. The court emphasised that directions should be viewed in the context of the entire summing up and the specific facts of the case. Given the trial judge’s comprehensive directions on causation and the context in which the terms were used, the court found no substantial departure from the standard of care required. The court concluded that the trial judge's direction did not constitute a misdirection and dismissed the appeal.

Orders