R v Davis [2016] NSWSC 1362

R v Davis [2016] NSWSC 1362

The Crown proved beyond reasonable doubt that one person injected all three victims with insulin within the relevant timeframes, and reasonable alternative hypotheses involving residents, visitors, unidentified entrants, other non-staff persons or another staff member were rejected. The accused was on duty in the Mountview ward, had access to the victims, insulin and syringes, was skilled and experienced in administering insulin, had recently administered insulin despite policy restrictions, possessed needles, syringes and insulin prescribing information, and sent text messages indicating foreknowledge of the likely demise of Ms Manuel and Mr Kelly. Considering the combined force of the...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 September 2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal Prosecution for Murder and Administering Poison With Intent to Murder / Judge Alone Trial; Reasons for Verdict
Outcome
Guilty to each count
Legal Topics
['murder' 'attempted Murder' 'administering Poison With Intent to Murder' 'circumstantial Evidence' 'coincidence Evidence' 'judge Alone Trial' 'insulin Poisoning']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['murder' 'attempted Murder' 'administering Poison With Intent to Murder' 'circumstantial Evidence' 'coincidence Evidence' 'judge Alone Trial' 'insulin Poisoning']

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 Prosecution for Murder and Administering Poison With Intent to Murder / Judge Alone Trial; Reasons for Verdict

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the accused administered insulin injections to Gwendolyne Fowler, Audrey Manuel and Ryan Kelly.' 'Whether the Crown proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed two murders and administered poison with intent to murder.' 'Whether the circumstantial evidence excluded reasonable hypotheses consistent with innocence, including that a resident, visitor, unidentified person or another staff member was responsible.' 'Whether the evidence concerning the three events could be used as coincidence evidence.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Crown proved beyond reasonable doubt that one person injected all three victims with insulin within the relevant timeframes, and reasonable alternative hypotheses involving residents, visitors, unidentified entrants, other non-staff persons or another staff member were rejected. The accused was on duty in the Mountview ward, had access to the victims, insulin and syringes, was skilled and experienced in administering insulin, had recently administered insulin despite policy restrictions, possessed needles, syringes and insulin prescribing information, and sent text messages indicating foreknowledge of the likely demise of Ms Manuel and Mr Kelly. Considering the combined force of the...

Court Disposition

Guilty to each count

Orders

  • ['Verdict on count 1, murder of Ms Gwendolyne Fowler: Guilty' 'Verdict on count 2, administer poison with intent to murder Ms Audrey Manuel: Guilty' 'Verdict on count 3, murder of Mr Ryan Kelly: Guilty']