R. v. Michael Anthony Ryan (No. 8) [2012] NSWSC 1161

R. v. Michael Anthony Ryan (No. 8) [2012] NSWSC 1161

The directed verdict application was refused because there was evidence which, if accepted by the jury, was capable of proving the charges, including evidence that the accused punched the deceased causing him to fall and suffer the fatal head injury, and evidence capable of negativing self-defence; directing an acquittal would usurp the jury's function. The Crown case on manslaughter was limited to a punch because the accused was entitled to know the particular act alleged as the foundation of the charge, the indictment was general, the prosecution had particularised the act as a punch, and allowing another form of striking to found liability would prejudice the accused's right to a fair...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 September 2012
Procedural Posture
Criminal Trial Involving Charges Including Manslaughter / Interlocutory Applications for a Verdict by Direction and for a Ruling Limiting the Crown Manslaughter Case
Outcome
The application for a verdict by direction was refused; the application to limit the Crown manslaughter case to a punch was granted.
Legal Topics
['verdict by Direction' 'prasad Direction' 'manslaughter by Unlawful and Dangerous Act' 'self Defence' 'particularisation of Prosecution Case' 'fair Trial']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure'] ['verdict by Direction' 'prasad Direction' 'manslaughter by Unlawful and Dangerous Act' 'self Defence' 'particularisation of Prosecution Case' 'fair Trial']

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 Trial Involving Charges Including Manslaughter / Interlocutory Applications for a Verdict by Direction and for a Ruling Limiting the Crown Manslaughter Case

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the accused should receive a directed verdict of not guilty.' 'Whether the Crown case on manslaughter should be left to the jury only on the basis that the alleged unlawful and dangerous act was a punch, and no other form of striking.' 'Whether the evidence, if accepted, was capable of proving the assault charge, manslaughter, causation, and negativing self-defence beyond reasonable doubt.']

Ratio Decidendi

The directed verdict application was refused because there was evidence which, if accepted by the jury, was capable of proving the charges, including evidence that the accused punched the deceased causing him to fall and suffer the fatal head injury, and evidence capable of negativing self-defence; directing an acquittal would usurp the jury's function. The Crown case on manslaughter was limited to a punch because the accused was entitled to know the particular act alleged as the foundation of the charge, the indictment was general, the prosecution had particularised the act as a punch, and allowing another form of striking to found liability would prejudice the accused's right to a fair...

Court Disposition

The application for a verdict by direction was refused; the application to limit the Crown manslaughter case to a punch was granted.

Orders

  • ['The application for a verdict by direction is refused.' 'The Crown case is to be left to the jury on the basis that the act of the accused founding the charge of manslaughter is a punch only, and no other form of striking.']