R v Holmes (No 3) [2020] NSWSC 137

R v Holmes (No 3) [2020] NSWSC 137

The asserted lie could permissibly be addressed by a general lies direction, but not as a lie evidencing consciousness of guilt. Excessive self-defence should not be left to the jury because Mr Holmes' ERISP account and the evidence generally did not provide an evidential foundation that he assaulted Mr Hadden because he believed it was necessary to defend himself, and the case proceeded on the basis that the guilty plea to manslaughter foreclosed complete self-defence.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 February 2020
Procedural Posture
Criminal Law Procedural Ruling / Rulings on Proposed Jury Directions During Trial
Outcome
The Court ruled that a general lies direction would be given and excessive self-defence would not be left to the jury.
Legal Topics
['directions to Jury' 'lies as Supporting an Inference of Guilt' 'lies as Consciousness of Guilt' 'excessive Self Defence' 'manslaughter Alternative Verdict']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure'] ['directions to Jury' 'lies as Supporting an Inference of Guilt' 'lies as Consciousness of Guilt' 'excessive Self Defence' 'manslaughter Alternative Verdict']

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 Law Procedural Ruling / Rulings on Proposed Jury Directions During Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the jury should receive a general direction as to lies or a direction treating lies as consciousness of guilt.' 'Whether excessive self-defence should be left to the jury where the accused pleaded not guilty to murder but guilty to manslaughter.']

Ratio Decidendi

The asserted lie could permissibly be addressed by a general lies direction, but not as a lie evidencing consciousness of guilt. Excessive self-defence should not be left to the jury because Mr Holmes' ERISP account and the evidence generally did not provide an evidential foundation that he assaulted Mr Hadden because he believed it was necessary to defend himself, and the case proceeded on the basis that the guilty plea to manslaughter foreclosed complete self-defence.

Court Disposition

The Court ruled that a general lies direction would be given and excessive self-defence would not be left to the jury.

Orders

  • ['A general direction as to lies, but not lies as consciousness of guilt, will be given and related specifically to the exchange between Mr Wood and Mr Holmes after the event relied upon by the prosecution.' "Mr Holmes' account on the ERISP does not provide an evidential foundation for leaving excessive self-defence...