R v Toma [1999] NSWCCA 350

R v Toma [1999] NSWCCA 350

The appeal against conviction failed because the Crown case and the trial judge's written and oral directions identified the relevant act as the appellant's deliberate thrusting of a knife into the victim's body causing the fatal wound. If the jury accepted that case beyond reasonable doubt, the death was caused directly by the appellant's deliberate act with the required intent, so no further direction about a third-party or victim intervention and reasonable foreseeability was required. The provocation complaint failed because the impugned remark, read in context, properly explained the extent of loss of self-control required and did not remove provocation from the jury. The sentence...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 November 1999
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Conviction for Murder and Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence / Appeal in the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal From Conviction and Sentence in the Supreme Court Before Hulme J and a Jury
Outcome
Appeal against conviction dismissed; leave to appeal against sentence granted; appeal against sentence dismissed.
Legal Topics
['murder' 'causation' 'accident' 'provocation' 'self Defence' 'intention to Kill or Inflict Grievous Bodily Harm' 'remorse on Sentence' 'admissibility of Opinion Evidence']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'sentencing' 'evidence'] ['murder' 'causation' 'accident' 'provocation' 'self Defence' 'intention to Kill or Inflict Grievous Bodily Harm' 'remorse on Sentence' 'admissibility of Opinion Evidence']

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 and Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence / Appeal in the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal From Conviction and Sentence in the Supreme Court Before Hulme J and a Jury

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the trial judge was required to give a special causation direction about possible intervention by the victim or a third party and reasonable foreseeability' 'Whether the trial judge removed the issue of accident from the jury' "Whether the trial judge's direction on provocation substantially removed provocation from the jury" 'Whether the sentencing judge erred in rejecting a report statement that the appellant was full of remorse']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal against conviction failed because the Crown case and the trial judge's written and oral directions identified the relevant act as the appellant's deliberate thrusting of a knife into the victim's body causing the fatal wound. If the jury accepted that case beyond reasonable doubt, the death was caused directly by the appellant's deliberate act with the required intent, so no further direction about a third-party or victim intervention and reasonable foreseeability was required. The provocation complaint failed because the impugned remark, read in context, properly explained the extent of loss of self-control required and did not remove provocation from the jury. The sentence...

Court Disposition

Appeal against conviction dismissed; leave to appeal against sentence granted; appeal against sentence dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Appeal against conviction dismissed.' 'Leave to appeal against sentence granted.' 'Appeal against sentence dismissed.']