R v MR [2000] FCA 1127

R v MR [2000] FCA 1127

The reference appeal was incompetent because the question posed by the Director was not a question of law arising at or in connection with the trial. The trial judge did not decide whether, on the facts now identified by the Director as findings, the accused owed a duty of care to the deceased capable of founding manslaughter liability. The Crown also sought to rely on a fact concerning the provision of $250 for heroin that did not apparently form part of the manslaughter case put to the trial judge. Accordingly, the Court declined to answer the question.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 August 2000
Procedural Posture
Reference Appeal Under S 30 a of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (cth) / On Appeal From the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory After Acquittal at Trial
Outcome
Reference appeal dismissed as incompetent.
Legal Topics
['involuntary Manslaughter' 'duty of Care' 'reference Appeal' 'question of Law Arising at or in Connection With Trial' 'competence of Appeal']
['criminal Law' 'appellate Procedure'] ['involuntary Manslaughter' 'duty of Care' 'reference Appeal' 'question of Law Arising at or in Connection With Trial' 'competence of Appeal']

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

Reference Appeal Under S 30 a of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (cth) / On Appeal From the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory After Acquittal at Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the question referred by the Director was a question of law arising at or in connection with the trial within s 30A of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth).' 'Whether the trial judge had actually decided whether, on the facts now identified by the Director, the accused owed a duty of care to the deceased capable of founding liability for manslaughter.' 'Whether the Court should comment on duty of care principles for involuntary manslaughter despite finding the reference incompetent.']

Ratio Decidendi

The reference appeal was incompetent because the question posed by the Director was not a question of law arising at or in connection with the trial. The trial judge did not decide whether, on the facts now identified by the Director as findings, the accused owed a duty of care to the deceased capable of founding manslaughter liability. The Crown also sought to rely on a fact concerning the provision of $250 for heroin that did not apparently form part of the manslaughter case put to the trial judge. Accordingly, the Court declined to answer the question.

Court Disposition

Reference appeal dismissed as incompetent.

Orders

  • ['The reference appeal be dismissed as incompetent.']