Citation: Regina v Cornelissen; R v Sutton [2004] NSWCCA 449
Court: NSW Court of Criminal Appeal
Date: 21 December 2004
Judge(s): James J, Hidden J, Bell J
Background
Two appellants were convicted after a joint trial in the District Court of the manslaughter of a man at Parkes on 2 August 2001. The deceased was the step-brother of the first appellant. On the night in question, both appellants travelled together to the deceased's home, where a physical altercation occurred. The first appellant punched the deceased, causing a tear in a blood vessel supplying the brain and a subsequent fatal subarachnoid haemorrhage.
The Crown case against the first appellant was that he committed manslaughter by an unlawful and dangerous act, namely the fatal punch. The Crown case against the second appellant proceeded on two alternative bases: that he was a party to a joint criminal enterprise with the first appellant to seriously assault the deceased, or that he was an aider and abettor who was knowingly and intentionally present and assisting when the fatal punch was thrown.
Both appellants were sentenced to terms of imprisonment, with the second appellant having already been released on parole by the time the appeal was heard. Each also sought leave to appeal against sentence, contingent on the conviction appeals failing.
Legal Issues
- Whether the trial judge erred by failing to direct the jury not to engage in tendency reasoning when considering evidence about the relationship between the parties
- Whether the trial judge's directions on the elements of manslaughter by an unlawful and dangerous act were adequate
- Whether certain evidence was admissible against the second appellant
- Whether the trial judge's directions regarding alleged admissions by the second appellant were adequate
- Whether the trial judge's directions on joint criminal enterprise were correct
- Whether the verdicts against both appellants were unreasonable and unsupported by the evidence
Decision
The Court of Criminal Appeal allowed both appeals, upholding multiple grounds for each appellant. James J delivered the principal judgment, with Hidden J and Bell J agreeing.
In relation to the first appellant, the Court upheld four grounds of appeal, including errors in the trial judge's directions concerning tendency reasoning, manslaughter, and the treatment of relationship evidence. The failure to properly direct the jury on tendency reasoning was particularly significant, given the background circumstances involving family relationships and the alleged motive for attending the deceased's home.
In relation to the second appellant, the Court upheld grounds concerning inadmissible evidence, the directions on alleged admissions, joint enterprise directions, and, critically, the reasonableness of the verdict itself. The Court found that, on the Crown's own evidence, the jury ought to have had a reasonable doubt about whether the second appellant was aiding and abetting the first appellant at the moment the fatal punch was thrown. Witnesses who were present gave evidence that the second appellant was standing near the deceased but none gave evidence of him actively doing anything, and he protested at the time that he had not done anything.
Because the Court upheld the ground that each verdict was unreasonable and unsupported by the evidence, convictions were quashed absolutely and verdicts of acquittal were entered for both appellants. This meant the sentence appeals became unnecessary to address.
Orders Made
- Both appeals against conviction allowed
- Both convictions quashed and verdicts of acquittal entered
- Applications for leave to appeal against sentence not determined (rendered unnecessary by the above orders)
Key Takeaways
- Where a manslaughter conviction rests on an unlawful and dangerous act, the trial judge must direct the jury clearly on the elements of that form of liability; inadequate directions on this point can constitute reversible error.
- A failure to direct the jury against tendency reasoning, when relationship evidence is before the jury and carries a real risk of prejudicial misuse, may warrant appellate intervention.
- Mere presence at the scene of an assault is not sufficient to establish accessorial liability; the Crown must establish that the alleged aider and abettor knowingly and intentionally assisted in the act causing death, and evidence of passive presence without more will not support a conviction.
- The Court of Criminal Appeal confirmed that where a second accused's liability depends entirely on the criminal liability of a principal offender, an acquittal of the principal (through quashing) must also result in the acquittal of the secondary party.
- Under the unreasonable verdict ground, the Court assessed the Crown's own witnesses' accounts and found those accounts fell short of establishing the requisite participation for the second appellant, reinforcing that appellate courts will examine the totality of evidence rather than accepting a jury's conclusion uncritically.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation:
- Evidence Act (NSW)
Cases:
- Jones v The Queen (1997) 191 CLR 439
- M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487
- MFA v The Queen (2002) 213 CLR 606
- R v Stewart (2001) 52 NSWLR 301
- R v Stokes and Difford (1990) 51 A Crim R 25
- Wilson v The Queen (1991-1992) 174 CLR 313