R v Dwayne Anthony CARR (No 3) [2011] NSWSC 771

R v Dwayne Anthony CARR (No 3) [2011] NSWSC 771

Although the evidence disclosed reasonable hypotheses consistent with innocence and a guilty verdict might be unreasonable, those matters did not justify a directed verdict. Taking the Crown case at its highest, there was evidence from which the jury could infer that the deceased fell shortly after the push against the wall and that the fall was caused by the accused's conduct. The resolution of conflicts and inferences was therefore for the jury, not the trial judge.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 July 2011
Procedural Posture
Criminal Proceedings / Application for Directed Verdict After Close of Crown Case
Outcome
The application for directed verdict was refused.
Legal Topics
['directed Verdict' 'reasonable Hypothesis Consistent With Innocence' 'manslaughter' 'recklessly Inflicting Grievous Bodily Harm' 'causation' 'circumstantial Evidence and Inferences']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'evidence'] ['directed Verdict' 'reasonable Hypothesis Consistent With Innocence' 'manslaughter' 'recklessly Inflicting Grievous Bodily Harm' 'causation' 'circumstantial Evidence and Inferences']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Proceedings / Application for Directed Verdict After Close of Crown Case

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the evidence, taken at its highest for the Crown, could sustain a guilty verdict against the accused.' 'Whether an application for a directed verdict could be granted on the basis that reasonable hypotheses consistent with innocence were available to the jury.' "Whether the jury could infer that the deceased's fall in the kitchen occurred shortly after the accused pushed him against the wall and was caused by that conduct."]

Ratio Decidendi

Although the evidence disclosed reasonable hypotheses consistent with innocence and a guilty verdict might be unreasonable, those matters did not justify a directed verdict. Taking the Crown case at its highest, there was evidence from which the jury could infer that the deceased fell shortly after the push against the wall and that the fall was caused by the accused's conduct. The resolution of conflicts and inferences was therefore for the jury, not the trial judge.

Court Disposition

The application for directed verdict was refused.

Orders

  • ['The application for directed verdict is refused.']