R v Bentley; R v Davies; R v Thomas; R v Tilley [2019] NSWSC 283

R v Bentley; R v Davies; R v Thomas; R v Tilley [2019] NSWSC 283

There was no evidence that Mr Bentley, who committed the acts causing Mr Vollmost's death, acted as a result of loss of self-control; his own evidence was inconsistent with such a state and there was no other evidence capable of supporting the defence of extreme provocation. Accordingly, the application for a jury direction on extreme provocation was rejected.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 March 2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Application for Jury Direction at Close of Evidence
Outcome
Application for extreme provocation direction rejected
Legal Topics
['extreme Provocation' 'murder' 'jury Directions']
['criminal Law'] ['extreme Provocation' 'murder' 'jury Directions']

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 / Application for Jury Direction at Close of Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether there is evidence that the act that caused the deceased's death was in response to extreme provocation" 'Whether there is evidence that the accused lost self-control when he killed the deceased']

Ratio Decidendi

There was no evidence that Mr Bentley, who committed the acts causing Mr Vollmost's death, acted as a result of loss of self-control; his own evidence was inconsistent with such a state and there was no other evidence capable of supporting the defence of extreme provocation. Accordingly, the application for a jury direction on extreme provocation was rejected.

Court Disposition

Application for extreme provocation direction rejected

Orders

  • ['Application for extreme provocation direction to the jury rejected']