R v Cliff (No 5) [2018] NSWSC 166

R v Cliff (No 5) [2018] NSWSC 166

The Crown is permitted to rely upon evidence of post-offending conduct as evidence of guilt, as such evidence may, when considered in context, support an inference of intent for murder. There is sufficient evidence to leave the partial defence of extreme provocation to the jury, as elements of the defence have been raised by the accused's evidence. There is no viable case of self-defence on the evidence to be left for the jury due to the lack of credible evidence that the accused genuinely held the requisite belief or that his response was reasonable.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 February 2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Ruling on Evidentiary and Substantive Issues Before Jury Directions
Outcome
Ruling in favour of the Crown on use of post-offending conduct; extreme provocation left to jury; self-defence not left to jury.
Legal Topics
['consciousness of Guilt' 'post Offending Conduct' 'extreme Provocation' 'self Defence' 'murder' 'manslaughter' 'jury Direction']
['criminal Law'] ['consciousness of Guilt' 'post Offending Conduct' 'extreme Provocation' 'self Defence' 'murder' 'manslaughter' 'jury Direction']

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 / Ruling on Evidentiary and Substantive Issues Before Jury Directions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Crown may rely on evidence of post-offending conduct as evidence of guilt in a murder/manslaughter context' 'Whether the partial defence of extreme provocation should be left to the jury' 'Whether there is a viable case of self-defence to be left to the jury']

Ratio Decidendi

The Crown is permitted to rely upon evidence of post-offending conduct as evidence of guilt, as such evidence may, when considered in context, support an inference of intent for murder. There is sufficient evidence to leave the partial defence of extreme provocation to the jury, as elements of the defence have been raised by the accused's evidence. There is no viable case of self-defence on the evidence to be left for the jury due to the lack of credible evidence that the accused genuinely held the requisite belief or that his response was reasonable.

Court Disposition

Ruling in favour of the Crown on use of post-offending conduct; extreme provocation left to jury; self-defence not left to jury.

Orders

  • ['Crown may rely upon evidence of post-offending conduct as evidence of guilt.' 'Partial defence of extreme provocation will be left for the consideration of the jury.']