R v CRAMP [1999] NSWCCA 324

R v CRAMP [1999] NSWCCA 324

The alternative bases for manslaughter (gross negligence and unlawful and dangerous act) involved substantially the same facts and did not present materially different issues or consequences; thus, the jury was not required to be unanimous as to which basis applied, only unanimous as to the verdict. The trial judge's directions were adequate, the owner owed a duty of care, and the sentence was not manifestly excessive given the gravity of the offence.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 November 1999
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Court of Criminal Appeal; Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeal against conviction dismissed; leave granted to appeal against sentence; appeal against sentence dismissed.
Legal Topics
['manslaughter' 'gross Negligence' 'unlawful and Dangerous Act' 'jury Unanimity' 'duty of Care']
['criminal Law'] ['manslaughter' 'gross Negligence' 'unlawful and Dangerous Act' 'jury Unanimity' 'duty of Care']

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 / Court of Criminal Appeal; Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether jury must be unanimous as to either basis (manslaughter by gross negligence or by unlawful and dangerous act)' "Whether trial judge's directions to the jury were confusing regarding speed, encouragement, and multiple journeys" 'Whether owner of motor vehicle owes a duty of care to a person driving it' 'Whether the Crown could rely on unlawful and dangerous act as a basis for liability' 'Whether the conviction was unsafe or unsatisfactory' 'Whether the sentence was manifestly excessive']

Ratio Decidendi

The alternative bases for manslaughter (gross negligence and unlawful and dangerous act) involved substantially the same facts and did not present materially different issues or consequences; thus, the jury was not required to be unanimous as to which basis applied, only unanimous as to the verdict. The trial judge's directions were adequate, the owner owed a duty of care, and the sentence was not manifestly excessive given the gravity of the offence.

Court Disposition

Appeal against conviction dismissed; leave granted to appeal against sentence; appeal against sentence dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Appeal against conviction dismissed' 'Leave granted to appeal against sentence' 'Appeal against sentence dismissed']