R v LN; R v AW (No. 9) [2017] NSWSC 376

R v LN; R v AW (No. 9) [2017] NSWSC 376

The Court held that the Crown was not confined to proving an agreement to commit a single particular assault before relying on extended joint criminal enterprise against AW. On the Crown case, it was open to the jury to find a joint criminal enterprise between LN and AW to assault the child on multiple occasions over the relevant period, that AW participated and did not withdraw, and that he contemplated the possible intentional infliction of at least grievous bodily harm by LN during that enterprise. Presence, being in the house, or being awake at the time of the alleged fatal assault was not necessary to the elements alleged against AW. The proposed amendments were therefore not...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 August 2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal Murder Trial / Procedural Ruling on Proposed Jury Directions Concerning Joint Criminal Enterprise and Extended Joint Criminal Enterprise Before Closing Addresses
Outcome
Application by AW for amended jury directions refused; jury directed concerning AW in accordance with MFI34 and not MFI45.
Legal Topics
['murder' 'jury Directions' 'joint Criminal Enterprise' 'extended Joint Criminal Enterprise' 'assault' 'presence and Participation']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure'] ['murder' 'jury Directions' 'joint Criminal Enterprise' 'extended Joint Criminal Enterprise' 'assault' 'presence and Participation']

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 Murder Trial / Procedural Ruling on Proposed Jury Directions Concerning Joint Criminal Enterprise and Extended Joint Criminal Enterprise Before Closing Addresses

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the proposed written directions to the jury concerning AW should be amended as sought by AW.' 'Whether joint criminal enterprise and extended joint criminal enterprise require the Crown to identify a single foundational offence rather than an agreement to commit assaults over a period of time.' 'Whether the jury should be directed that presence at the scene can constitute participation but being physically present while asleep does not constitute participation.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the Crown was not confined to proving an agreement to commit a single particular assault before relying on extended joint criminal enterprise against AW. On the Crown case, it was open to the jury to find a joint criminal enterprise between LN and AW to assault the child on multiple occasions over the relevant period, that AW participated and did not withdraw, and that he contemplated the possible intentional infliction of at least grievous bodily harm by LN during that enterprise. Presence, being in the house, or being awake at the time of the alleged fatal assault was not necessary to the elements alleged against AW. The proposed amendments were therefore not...

Court Disposition

Application by AW for amended jury directions refused; jury directed concerning AW in accordance with MFI34 and not MFI45.

Orders

  • ['Jury directed concerning AW in accordance with MFI34 and not MFI45.']