Hoskins v R [2014] NSWCCA 207

Hoskins v R [2014] NSWCCA 207

The appellant's record of interview, particularly his answers that he pursued the deceased, knew Michael Brown was swinging a knife or machete at the deceased, felt the deceased's blood hitting him, and then tackled the deceased, provided no reasonable evidentiary foundation for a finding that his state of mind was less than awareness that his co-offender was striking the deceased with intent to inflict grievous bodily harm. Manslaughter was therefore not a viable alternative verdict and the trial judge did not err by not leaving it to the jury.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 October 2014
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Conviction for Murder / Appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
['murder' 'manslaughter' 'joint Criminal Enterprise' 'alternative Verdicts' 'unlawful and Dangerous Act Manslaughter' 'criminal Appeal Rules R 4']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'evidence'] ['murder' 'manslaughter' 'joint Criminal Enterprise' 'alternative Verdicts' 'unlawful and Dangerous Act Manslaughter' 'criminal Appeal Rules R 4']

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 Appeal Against Conviction for Murder / Appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the trial judge erred in failing to direct the jury with respect to an alternative verdict of manslaughter.' 'Whether manslaughter was a viable alternative verdict on the evidence.' 'Whether it was open to the jury to find that the appellant participated in a joint criminal enterprise falling short of an intention to cause death or grievous bodily harm.' "Whether the appellant's record of interview provided an evidentiary foundation for a state of mind other than awareness that a co-offender was striking the deceased with a knife or machete."]

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant's record of interview, particularly his answers that he pursued the deceased, knew Michael Brown was swinging a knife or machete at the deceased, felt the deceased's blood hitting him, and then tackled the deceased, provided no reasonable evidentiary foundation for a finding that his state of mind was less than awareness that his co-offender was striking the deceased with intent to inflict grievous bodily harm. Manslaughter was therefore not a viable alternative verdict and the trial judge did not err by not leaving it to the jury.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed']