R v Bentley; R v Davies; R v Thomas; R v Tilley [2018] NSWSC 212

R v Bentley; R v Davies; R v Thomas; R v Tilley [2018] NSWSC 212

There was sufficient evidence to leave the charge of specially aggravated kidnapping to the jury. The CCTV footage showed the accused carrying Mr Vollmost away, and evidence of assault, significant injuries and blood loss could support an inference of an intention to disable him for the purpose of detention. The evidence of Mr Knight and Mr Byrnes that remarks were made that Mr Vollmost was still breathing, together with Professor Duflou's evidence and the neutral CCTV depictions, was capable of permitting the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Vollmost was alive at the relevant time. It was therefore unnecessary to consider whether the alternative verdict of attempted...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 February 2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal Proceeding / No Case to Answer Application at the Close of the Crown Case
Outcome
No case submission rejected
Legal Topics
['no Case to Answer Application' 'specially Aggravated Kidnapping' 'attempted Specially Aggravated Kidnapping' 'intention to Detain for Advantage' 'whether Victim Was Alive' 'in Company' 'actual Bodily Harm']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure'] ['no Case to Answer Application' 'specially Aggravated Kidnapping' 'attempted Specially Aggravated Kidnapping' 'intention to Detain for Advantage' 'whether Victim Was Alive' 'in Company' 'actual Bodily Harm']

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 Proceeding / No Case to Answer Application at the Close of the Crown Case

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether there was evidence fit to go to the jury on the charge of specially aggravated kidnapping.' 'Whether there was sufficient evidence from which the jury could infer an intention to detain Mr Vollmost in order to obtain an advantage.' 'Whether the jury could be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Vollmost was alive when he was taken from the premises.' 'Whether it was necessary to consider the alternative verdict of attempted specially aggravated kidnapping.']

Ratio Decidendi

There was sufficient evidence to leave the charge of specially aggravated kidnapping to the jury. The CCTV footage showed the accused carrying Mr Vollmost away, and evidence of assault, significant injuries and blood loss could support an inference of an intention to disable him for the purpose of detention. The evidence of Mr Knight and Mr Byrnes that remarks were made that Mr Vollmost was still breathing, together with Professor Duflou's evidence and the neutral CCTV depictions, was capable of permitting the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Vollmost was alive at the relevant time. It was therefore unnecessary to consider whether the alternative verdict of attempted...

Court Disposition

No case submission rejected

Orders

  • ['Each charge should be left to the jury.']