R v CLD [2015] NSWCCA 114

R v CLD [2015] NSWCCA 114

The trial judge erred in directing an acquittal. The Crown did not have to identify the actual source of ignition to prove dangerousness or causation, because the relevant act was the extraction of pseudoephedrine by evaporating toluene in an inadequately ventilated shed with multiple potential ignition sources. Taking the Crown case at its highest, there was evidence from which a jury could find that one of the possible ignition sources operated and that the respondent was causally responsible for M's death; any issues about intervening acts or reasonable doubt were for a properly directed jury.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 May 2015
Procedural Posture
Crown Appeal Under S 107(2) of the Crimes (appeal and Review) Act 2001 (nsw) Against a Directed Verdict of Acquittal on a Charge of Manslaughter / Appeal From the District Court of NSW Directed Verdict of Acquittal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; verdict of acquittal quashed; new trial ordered on the charge of manslaughter.
Legal Topics
['manslaughter by Unlawful and Dangerous Act' 'directed Verdict of Acquittal' 'causation' 'dangerousness' 'drug Manufacture' 'joint Criminal Enterprise']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Appeals'] ['manslaughter by Unlawful and Dangerous Act' 'directed Verdict of Acquittal' 'causation' 'dangerousness' 'drug Manufacture' 'joint Criminal Enterprise']

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

Crown Appeal Under S 107(2) of the Crimes (appeal and Review) Act 2001 (nsw) Against a Directed Verdict of Acquittal on a Charge of Manslaughter / Appeal From the District Court of NSW Directed Verdict of Acquittal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Crown had to prove the actual source of ignition to characterise the respondent's act as dangerous for manslaughter by unlawful and dangerous act." 'Whether the Crown had to prove the actual source of ignition to establish causation.' 'Whether the Crown had to negate possible alternative sources of ignition said to be consistent with innocence before the case could be left to the jury.']

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge erred in directing an acquittal. The Crown did not have to identify the actual source of ignition to prove dangerousness or causation, because the relevant act was the extraction of pseudoephedrine by evaporating toluene in an inadequately ventilated shed with multiple potential ignition sources. Taking the Crown case at its highest, there was evidence from which a jury could find that one of the possible ignition sources operated and that the respondent was causally responsible for M's death; any issues about intervening acts or reasonable doubt were for a properly directed jury.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; verdict of acquittal quashed; new trial ordered on the charge of manslaughter.

Orders

  • ['Appeal allowed.' 'Verdict of acquittal on charge of manslaughter quashed.' 'Order a new trial on the charge of manslaughter.']