R v Cyril Weazel [2014] NSWSC 1664

R v Cyril Weazel [2014] NSWSC 1664

The Crown did not prove beyond reasonable doubt that any particular act or acts of the accused substantially contributed to the deceased's death. The deceased had sustained many blunt force injuries that could have resulted from repeated falls while severely intoxicated; the two most serious injuries were likely attributable respectively to repeated falls against the bed or wall and to CPR. Nor did the Crown prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused intended to really seriously injure the deceased. Accordingly murder was not established, and the alternative count of causing grievous bodily harm with intent also failed because causation of grievous bodily harm and intent were not proved.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 November 2014
Procedural Posture
Common Law Criminal Special Hearing / Special Hearing Before Judge Alone Following a Finding That the Accused Was Unfit to Be Tried
Outcome
The accused was found not guilty of both counts on the indictment.
Legal Topics
['murder' 'causing Grievous Bodily Harm With Intent' 'causation' 'intent' 'fitness to Be Tried' 'special Hearing']

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

Common Law Criminal Special Hearing / Special Hearing Before Judge Alone Following a Finding That the Accused Was Unfit to Be Tried

  1. 1 ['Whether the Crown proved beyond reasonable doubt that an act or acts of the accused substantially contributed to the death of Nancy Dynevor.' 'Whether the Crown proved beyond reasonable doubt that, at the time of inflicting any fatal injuries, the accused intended to cause really serious injury.' 'Whether the accused caused grievous bodily harm to Nancy Dynevor with intent to cause grievous bodily harm.' 'Whether the partial defence of substantial impairment would reduce murder to manslaughter if murder were otherwise established.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Crown did not prove beyond reasonable doubt that any particular act or acts of the accused substantially contributed to the deceased's death. The deceased had sustained many blunt force injuries that could have resulted from repeated falls while severely intoxicated; the two most serious injuries were likely attributable respectively to repeated falls against the bed or wall and to CPR. Nor did the Crown prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused intended to really seriously injure the deceased. Accordingly murder was not established, and the alternative count of causing grievous bodily harm with intent also failed because causation of grievous bodily harm and intent were not proved.

Court Disposition

The accused was found not guilty of both counts on the indictment.

Orders

  • ['The accused is not guilty of murder.' 'The accused is not guilty of causing grievous bodily harm with intent to cause grievous bodily harm.' 'Pursuant to s 26 of the Mental Health (Forensic Procedures) Act 1990, the accused is to be dealt with as if he had been found not guilty at a normal trial in relation to...