Legal Research
Cases
Riley v R

Riley v R

Case [2011] NSWCCA 238 14 September 2011

Criminal Liability

Appeal

Unreasonable Verdicts

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: RILEY v R [2011] NSWCCA 238
Hearing dates: 31 May 2011
Decision date: 14 September 2011
Before: McClellan CJ at CL at [1]
Hoeben J at [165]
Grove AJ at [166]
Decision:
1. Appeal upheld.
2. Quash the conviction in relation to counts 1, 4 and 7 and order that verdicts of acquittal be entered with respect to those counts.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL APPEAL - provision of drugs to a person who dies or falls ill - meaning of cause a person to take a drug - insufficient evidence to constitute tendency - unreasonable verdicts - appeal upheld - convictions quashed and acquittals ordered.
Legislation Cited: Offences Against the Person Act 1861
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW)
Evidence Act
Cases Cited: Em v R [2006] NSWCCA 336
Em v The Queen (2007) 232 CLR 67
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499
M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487
O'Sullivan v Truth & Sportsman Ltd (1957) 96 CLR 220
R v Burns [2011] NSWCCA 56.
R v Em [2003] NSWCCA 374
R v Ford [2009] NSWCCA 306
R v Kennedy (No. 2) [2008] 1 AC 269
R v Moffatt [2000] NSWCCA 174; (2000) 112 A Crim R 201
R v Nelson [2004] NSWCCA 231
R v PL [2009] NSWCCA 256
R v SJRC [2007] NSWCCA 142
R v Wilhelm [2010] NSWSC 334; 200 A Crim R 413
SKA v The Queen [2011] HCA 13
Smale v The Queen [2007] NSWCCA 328
Vickers v The Queen [2006] NSWCCA 60
Warren v Coombes (1979) 142 CLR 531
Texts Cited: 3rd ed. of Halsbury's Laws of England
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Daniel Charles Riley (appellant)
The Crown
Representation: T Molomby SC/Tony Evers (appellant)
D Arnott SC (Crown)
M A Douglass (appellant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Crown)

File Number(s): 2008/1881
Decision under appeal

Date of Decision:

2009-12-17 00:00:00

Before:

Blackmore DCJ

File Number(s):

2008/11/1246

Judgment

McCLELLAN CJ at CL : The Court made orders in this appeal on 14 September 2011 and indicated that it would publish its reasons on a later occasion. These are my reasons for joining in the orders of the Court.

This appeal raises issues with respect to the provision by one person of dangerous drugs to another person who dies. Some of the issues in the present appeal were considered by this Court in R v Burns [2011] NSWCCA 56. However, the factual circumstances of the present case are different.

The appellant suffered from chronic depression for which he took Moclobemide (Aurorix) and Venlaxafine (Effexor). On occasions he took the drugs in combination. Taking these drugs in combination may induce a "high" in the taker but is also accepted to be dangerous and can be fatal.

In circumstances which I relate below, the appellant associated with Shaun Bateson and Brian Hadfield. Shaun Bateson died in May 2004 and Brian Hadfield in July of that year. The evidence proved…

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 Riley v R

Details

AGLC: Riley v R [2011] NSWCCA 238
Case: [2011] NSWCCA 238
Decision Date: 14 September 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Riley v R involved a criminal appeal where the respondent was convicted of supplying drugs that resulted in the death of another individual. The case was heard in the court of appeal, which was tasked with determining the validity of the conviction and the sufficiency of the evidence provided. The central legal issue before the court was the interpretation of the phrase "cause a person to take a drug," specifically in the context of whether the evidence was sufficient to establish that the respondent caused the victim to take the drug, which subsequently led to their death.

The court examined the evidence presented and found it insufficient to constitute a tendency that the respondent caused the victim to take the drug. The court held that the evidence did not establish a logical connection between the respondent's actions and the victim's ingestion of the drug. Furthermore, the court identified that the primary judge had overlooked an important piece of evidence that contradicted the prosecution's case. Consequently, the court determined that the verdicts were unreasonable and that the appeal should be upheld. The convictions were quashed, and acquittals were ordered for the respondent.

The court's decision underscores the necessity for a clear and convincing link between the accused's actions and the harmful outcome, and highlights the importance of proper evaluation of evidence in criminal cases. The final orders of the court resulted in the quashing of the convictions and the respondent being acquitted of the charges.

Orders