Criminal Law—Manslaughter—Death caused by unlawful and dangerous act—Reasonable person's foresight of risk of injury—Whether risk of serious injury or some harm—Battery manslaughter—Whether offence known to law.
Decisions
MASON C.J., TOOHEY, GAUDRON AND McHUGH JJ. The appellant was charged with the murder of Warren George Forsythe Ormsby. He was acquitted of that charge but was convicted of manslaughter. He stood trial jointly with Wayne Dennis Cumming who was found not guilty of murder and manslaughter. Both offences are dealt with in the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (S.A.) ("the Act") but neither is defined in the Act. Their elements are to be found in the common law. The facts
2. The events giving rise to the charge against the appellant were as follows. On the evening of 15 September 1989 the appellant, his girlfriend Kerri Ann Bennier and Cumming were at the home occupied by Cumming's step-father and the appellant's mother. The appellant and Bennier walked to a hotel nearby to collect some alcohol from the appellant's mother who was at the hotel with Cumming's step-father. On the way they met the deceased, a middle-aged man, who was under the influence of liquor. The deceased exchanged words with the appellant and Bennier. The appellant thought that the deceased was "strange, a bit weird". The thrust of the appellant's evidence was that the deceased was rambling on and making it hard for him to pass. The appellant then told Bennier to go back home to get Cumming so, he said, that Cumming might go to the hotel and collect the alcohol. When Cumming arrived at the scene with Bennier, the appellant and the deceased were still there. The appellant claimed that the deceased had earlier pushed him and that, after Cumming arrived, the deceased "put his arm on the back of my neck and tried to kiss me". The deceased then "shouldered me". The appellant tried to walk away, saw that the deceased's fists were clenched at his side and thought that the deceased was going to hit him. This evidence followed:
"Q. So what did you do. A. That's when I hit him. Q. How hard did you hit him. A. It wasn't really - I didn't think it was really that very hard. Q. It wasn't soft either. A. No. Q. Only the one time. A. Yes, I only hit him the once."
3. The blow was to the deceased's face, causing him to fall to the ground where his head "landed in that dirt part near the hedge". The appellant then walked off with Bennier. As he did, Cumming rolled the deceased on to his stomach, went through his pockets, rolled him on to his back and "smashed his head on the concrete ... twice". The cause of the deceased's death was brain damage, his injuries being consistent with one impact. The…
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 Wilson v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Wilson v The Queen [1992] HCA 31
Case
[1992] HCA 31
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The High Court of Australia considered the appeal of Wilson against a conviction for murder. The central dispute concerned the admissibility of a confession made by Wilson to police.
The primary legal issue before the High Court was whether the confession was obtained in circumstances that rendered it inadmissible under the common law, specifically whether it was involuntary or improperly obtained. This involved an examination of the voluntariness of the confession, considering the appellant's mental state and the conduct of the police during the interview.
The Court applied the principles governing the admissibility of confessions, which require that a confession be voluntary. A confession is considered involuntary if it is obtained by fear of prejudice or hope of favour, or if the will of the accused is overborne. The judges considered the evidence relating to Wilson's intellectual disability and the duration and nature of the police interview. They concluded that, while Wilson had an intellectual disability, there was no evidence that his will was overborne or that the confession was induced by improper pressure. Therefore, the confession was deemed admissible.