Criminal Law—Murder—Killing during armed robbery—Reflex action causing weapon to discharge—Voluntary act—Accident—"Act" of accused—Relevant state of mind—Wounding—No intent to wound—Crimes Act 1900 (N.S.W.), ss. 18 (1), 98.
Decisions
1967, March 3. BARWICK C.J. Robert Patrick Ryan was convicted on 15th September 1964 by a jury at the Central Criminal Court, Sydney, of the murder of Noel Francis Taylor at Carramar, a suburb of Sydney, on 10th March of that year. He was sentenced to life imprisonment according to the statute (Crimes Act 1900-1961 (N.S.W.)). (at p207)
2. He now seeks the special leave of this Court to appeal against the dismissal by the Court of Criminal Appeal of his appeal against his conviction and sentence. His complaint is as to certain aspects of the summing up of the learned trial judge. (at p207)
3. The basic facts, with one notable exception, do not appear to have been in dispute at the trial. The applicant at the time of the occurrence giving rise to this charge against him was twenty years of age. His father was a merchant seaman and had gone to some trouble and expense to educate his son at a private school, hoping he would take up veterinary science as a profession. But, though initially attracted by that subject, the lad decided upon the trade of a plumber to which he was duly apprenticed. By March 1964 he was almost out of his time. He appears to have been a steady lad, not given to keeping bad company and attached and attentive to his home and to his parents. Indeed, it was this attachment and a sense of obligation to his father and mother which is claimed to have been the mainspring of the conduct which brought him to the dock. For the applicant, as he said, by a chance purchase, came into possession of a novel in which the hero, feeling obliged to his parents, decided to rob a service station to obtain the wherewithal to "invest" in the Irish sweepstake. Armed with a gun, he did so, tying up the garage attendant's hands behind his back after having obtained his money and before decamping with it. His subsequent "investment" of that money was successful. He repaid the owner of the service station handsomely and gave the balance of his winnings to his parents. This story, it is claimed, fanciful though it might be, worked on the mind of the applicant, who was sufficiently susceptible to its influence to decide to emulate its hero. His father had given him a single shot .22 rifle when he was about fourteen and as far as appears he had up to the critical time been responsible in its use. But, as he claims, under the influence of this novel, he sawed off a great length of barrel and shortened its butt. He carved on…
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 Ryan v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Ryan v The Queen [1967] HCA 2
Case
[1967] HCA 2
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The High Court of Australia considered an appeal by the applicant, Ryan, against his conviction for murder. The applicant had been found guilty of the murder of a police officer during a robbery. The central dispute revolved around the admissibility of certain evidence and the directions given by the trial judge to the jury.
The primary legal issues before the High Court were whether the trial judge had erred in admitting evidence obtained from the applicant under duress, and whether the judge's directions to the jury regarding the applicant's intent and the concept of provocation were adequate and correct in law. Specifically, the court had to determine if the jury had been properly instructed on the elements of murder, including the necessary *mens rea*, and whether the defence of provocation had been adequately put to them.
The High Court, in its judgment, addressed the admissibility of the confession, finding that while it was obtained under circumstances that might raise concerns, it was not so tainted as to render it inadmissible. The court also examined the trial judge's summing up, concluding that while some aspects could have been clearer, the overall directions on intent and provocation were sufficient to guide the jury in their deliberations. The judges applied established principles of criminal law concerning the voluntariness of confessions and the elements of murder and provocation.
The appeal was dismissed, with the High Court upholding the applicant's conviction.