R v Thomas Sam; R v Manju Sam (No. 17) [2009] NSWSC 803

R v Thomas Sam; R v Manju Sam (No. 17) [2009] NSWSC 803

The written directions were appropriate because they preserved the objective reasonable person test while allowing the jury to attribute to the hypothetical reasonable person objective features of each accused, including age, education, training, experience and knowledge of the facts and circumstances, and requiring the jury to disregard personal beliefs, views or attitudes. Provocation authorities were not the appropriate source for the applicable principles. Certain proposed attributes for Manju Sam were rejected because they were misstated, not relevant objective attributes, subjective in character, or otherwise adequately covered by the directions.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 August 2009
Procedural Posture
Criminal Trial for Manslaughter by Gross Criminal Negligence / Procedural Ruling on Jury Directions Concerning the Reasonable Person Test During Trial
Outcome
Reasons given explaining the ruling on the content of the written jury directions concerning the reasonable person test.
Legal Topics
['manslaughter by Gross Criminal Negligence' 'jury Directions' 'reasonable Person Test' 'duty of Care' 'omission to Obtain Medical Care' 'parent Child Duty of Care' 'homeopath Patient Duty of Care']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure'] ['manslaughter by Gross Criminal Negligence' 'jury Directions' 'reasonable Person Test' 'duty of Care' 'omission to Obtain Medical Care' 'parent Child Duty of Care' 'homeopath Patient Duty of Care']

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 by Gross Criminal Negligence / Procedural Ruling on Jury Directions Concerning the Reasonable Person Test During Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['What directions should be given to the jury concerning the reasonable person test for manslaughter by gross criminal negligence.' 'Which attributes of each accused may be attributed to the hypothetical reasonable person.' 'Whether personal beliefs, views or attitudes of an accused may be attributed to the hypothetical reasonable person.' 'Whether principles from provocation should assist in formulating the reasonable person directions.']

Ratio Decidendi

The written directions were appropriate because they preserved the objective reasonable person test while allowing the jury to attribute to the hypothetical reasonable person objective features of each accused, including age, education, training, experience and knowledge of the facts and circumstances, and requiring the jury to disregard personal beliefs, views or attitudes. Provocation authorities were not the appropriate source for the applicable principles. Certain proposed attributes for Manju Sam were rejected because they were misstated, not relevant objective attributes, subjective in character, or otherwise adequately covered by the directions.

Court Disposition

Reasons given explaining the ruling on the content of the written jury directions concerning the reasonable person test.

Orders

  • ['The written directions in MFI59 concerning the reasonable parent case for Thomas Sam, the reasonable homeopath case for Thomas Sam, and the reasonable parent case for Manju Sam were provided to the jury as part of the summing up.']