REYNOLDS, Mathew v Regina [2015] NSWCCA 29

REYNOLDS, Mathew v Regina [2015] NSWCCA 29

The jury question and answer had to be read in the context of the summing up and the evidence. The trial judge had repeatedly directed that the Crown had to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant's negligence was a significant and substantial contributor to the harm causing death, a formulation at least as stringent as the accepted test. In context, the statement that significant and substantial were ordinary quantitative words with no essential difference and, in reverse, meant not trivial did not undermine the earlier directions or reduce the causation requirement. No error or miscarriage was established.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 March 2015
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Convictions / Application for Leave to Appeal Out of Time and Appeal Against Convictions in the Court of Criminal Appeal
Outcome
Leave granted to appeal out of time; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['manslaughter' 'criminal Negligence' 'causation' 'jury Directions' 'appeal Out of Time']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Appeals'] ['manslaughter' 'criminal Negligence' 'causation' 'jury Directions' 'appeal Out of Time']

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 Convictions / Application for Leave to Appeal Out of Time and Appeal Against Convictions in the Court of Criminal Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the trial judge misdirected the jury by stating that there was no essential difference between the words "significant" and "substantial" in relation to causation.' 'Whether the trial judge misdirected the jury by explaining that "significant and substantial" meant, in reverse, "not trivial".' "Whether any error in the causation direction caused a miscarriage of justice in the appellant's convictions for manslaughter."]

Ratio Decidendi

The jury question and answer had to be read in the context of the summing up and the evidence. The trial judge had repeatedly directed that the Crown had to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant's negligence was a significant and substantial contributor to the harm causing death, a formulation at least as stringent as the accepted test. In context, the statement that significant and substantial were ordinary quantitative words with no essential difference and, in reverse, meant not trivial did not undermine the earlier directions or reduce the causation requirement. No error or miscarriage was established.

Court Disposition

Leave granted to appeal out of time; appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Leave be granted to the appellant to appeal out of time.' 'The appeal be dismissed.']