Shadrock v R

Shadrock was convicted of murdering Mrs Wang as a result of a planned bag snatch in a car park in South Auckland. The appeal concerns whether the trial Judge erred in law in allowing the Crown to rely on s 167(d) of the Crimes Act as an alternative basis for a finding of murder. The appellant also argues that the trial Judge misdirected the jury on the elements of s 167(d) and on the meaning of the word “hit” in the question trail and summing up. Further, the appellant argues that a miscarriage of justice occurred from his trial being heard jointly with two of his associates. Finally, the appellant argues that the Judge erred in not giving a direction to the jury on the issue of intoxication. The appeal was allowed and the conviction quashed. The case was remitted to the High Court for a retrial. The Court found that the Judge was correct in holding that s 167(d) of the Crimes Act should be left to the jury as an alternative basis for a finding of murder. The Court held that the word “unlawful” in s 167(d) of the Crimes Act requires the commission of another crime, and also an act (that is, distinct from the commission of the “unlawful purpose” crime) that is known to be likely to cause and does actually cause death. The Court held that the Judge misdirected the jury on the meaning of the word “hit” in the question trail and summing up and that this misdirection gave rise to a miscarriage of justice. The Court found that there was no miscarriage of justice in the failure to sever the trial of the appellant from that of his co-accused and that an intoxication direction was not required to be given by the Judge.