R v Natalie BURNS [2009] NSWDC 232

R v Natalie BURNS [2009] NSWDC 232

The applications for a directed verdict were refused because the accused's causation argument based on voluntary self-administration could be left to the jury as a factual question rather than requiring withdrawal of the unlawful and dangerous act case, and because the alleged circumstances of a prohibited drug supply transaction at the accused's home for consumption on the premises were capable of giving rise to a limited duty sufficient to leave grossly negligent criminal omission manslaughter to the jury.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 August 2009
Procedural Posture
Criminal Trial for Manslaughter / Application for a Directed Verdict/no Case to Answer at Trial
Outcome
Applications for directed verdict refused.
Legal Topics
['manslaughter' 'causation' 'unlawful and Dangerous Act' 'criminally Negligent Omission' 'drug Supply' 'good Samaritan Principle']
['criminal Law'] ['manslaughter' 'causation' 'unlawful and Dangerous Act' 'criminally Negligent Omission' 'drug Supply' 'good Samaritan Principle']

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 Trial for Manslaughter / Application for a Directed Verdict/no Case to Answer at Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether a directed verdict should be entered on manslaughter by unlawful and dangerous act because the deceased's voluntary self-administration of the drug broke the chain of causation." 'Whether a directed verdict should be entered on manslaughter by grossly negligent criminal omission because the accused owed no relevant legal duty to the deceased.' 'Whether, on the facts, alleged involvement in supplying prohibited drugs for consumption on the premises could give rise to a duty not to be grossly or criminally neglectful toward the recipient.']

Ratio Decidendi

The applications for a directed verdict were refused because the accused's causation argument based on voluntary self-administration could be left to the jury as a factual question rather than requiring withdrawal of the unlawful and dangerous act case, and because the alleged circumstances of a prohibited drug supply transaction at the accused's home for consumption on the premises were capable of giving rise to a limited duty sufficient to leave grossly negligent criminal omission manslaughter to the jury.

Court Disposition

Applications for directed verdict refused.

Orders

  • ['Application for a directed verdict under head of "unlawfully dangerous act" refused.' 'Application for a directed verdict under head of "grossly negligent criminal omission" refused.']