R v IL [2016] NSWCCA 51

R v IL [2016] NSWCCA 51

The trial judge erred in law by failing to apply principles of joint criminal enterprise to the foundational crime, thus misdirecting the test for both constructive murder and manslaughter by unlawful and dangerous act; the respondent's liability was not derivative but direct, and a jury would have been permitted to find the ignition of the ring burner was within the scope of the criminal enterprise and done maliciously/recklessly, making directed acquittals improper.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 April 2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Directed Acquittal
Outcome
Acquittals quashed; new trial ordered
Legal Topics
['constructive Murder' 'manslaughter by Unlawful and Dangerous Act' 'joint Criminal Enterprise' 'directed Verdict' 'malice – Crimes Act 1900 (nsw) S 18(2)(a)' 'criminal Complicity']
['criminal Law' 'appellate Procedure'] ['constructive Murder' 'manslaughter by Unlawful and Dangerous Act' 'joint Criminal Enterprise' 'directed Verdict' 'malice – Crimes Act 1900 (nsw) S 18(2)(a)' 'criminal Complicity']

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 / Appeal From Directed Acquittal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the trial judge erred by directing acquittals on murder and manslaughter counts where the evidence supported liability under joint criminal enterprise principles for constructive murder and manslaughter by unlawful and dangerous act' 'Whether the appeal grounds raised questions of law alone so as to enliven jurisdiction under s 107(2) of the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 (NSW)' "Whether 'malicious' in s 18(2)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) required an evidentiary foundation"]

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge erred in law by failing to apply principles of joint criminal enterprise to the foundational crime, thus misdirecting the test for both constructive murder and manslaughter by unlawful and dangerous act; the respondent's liability was not derivative but direct, and a jury would have been permitted to find the ignition of the ring burner was within the scope of the criminal enterprise and done maliciously/recklessly, making directed acquittals improper.

Court Disposition

Acquittals quashed; new trial ordered

Orders

  • ['The verdict of the Supreme Court of 2 December 2014, pursuant to which the respondent was acquitted of the murder of Zhi Min Lan is quashed.' 'The verdict of the Supreme Court of 2 December 2014, pursuant to which the respondent was acquitted of the manslaughter of Zhi Min Lan is quashed.' 'There be a new trial on...