Bloodsworth v R [2019] NSWCCA 260

Bloodsworth v R [2019] NSWCCA 260

The verdict was unreasonable because the admissible evidence did not provide a rational basis for concluding beyond reasonable doubt that the applicant was or became party to any agreement with the co-offender to assault the deceased. Her mere presence at the unit was insufficient, and her lies and flight were equally consistent with hypotheses such as concern about accessory-after-the-fact liability, concealment of a serious indictable offence, loyalty or obligation to the co-offender. No jury advantage in seeing and hearing the evidence could overcome the absence of evidence capable of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 November 2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal Conviction Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence; Conviction Appeal Determined
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal allowed; conviction quashed; verdict of acquittal entered; applicant released forthwith.
Legal Topics
['manslaughter' 'joint Criminal Enterprise' 'unreasonable Verdict' 'circumstantial Evidence' 'consciousness of Guilt']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'appeals'] ['manslaughter' 'joint Criminal Enterprise' 'unreasonable Verdict' 'circumstantial Evidence' 'consciousness of Guilt']

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 Conviction Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence; Conviction Appeal Determined

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the jury verdict convicting the applicant of manslaughter was unreasonable and could not be supported having regard to the nature and quality of the evidence.' "Whether the applicant's presence in the unit at an unspecified time and her post-offence conduct were capable of proving beyond reasonable doubt that she was party to a joint criminal enterprise." 'Whether the Crown excluded reasonable hypotheses consistent with innocence in a circumstantial case against the applicant.']

Ratio Decidendi

The verdict was unreasonable because the admissible evidence did not provide a rational basis for concluding beyond reasonable doubt that the applicant was or became party to any agreement with the co-offender to assault the deceased. Her mere presence at the unit was insufficient, and her lies and flight were equally consistent with hypotheses such as concern about accessory-after-the-fact liability, concealment of a serious indictable offence, loyalty or obligation to the co-offender. No jury advantage in seeing and hearing the evidence could overcome the absence of evidence capable of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal allowed; conviction quashed; verdict of acquittal entered; applicant released forthwith.

Orders

  • ['Grant the applicant leave to appeal.' 'Allow the appeal.' 'Quash the conviction of the applicant for the offence of manslaughter.' 'Enter a verdict of acquittal.' 'The applicant is to be released forthwith.']