AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
1
Supreme Court 24 June 2020

R v Parkinson; R v Coats

[2020] NSWSC 794

Assault & violenceHomicide
CRIME MURDER DEFENCES SELF DEFENCE WHETHER THE CROWN EXCLUDED SELF

Citation: R v Parkinson; R v Coats [2020] NSWSC 794
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales
Date: 24 June 2020
Judge: Campbell J

Background

The two accused stood trial together, judge alone, in Albury in June 2020 following an incident on 10 March 2018 at Corowa. The first accused (Parkinson) was charged with murder. The Crown alleged he stabbed the deceased in the leg during a fight, severing the femoral artery and vein and causing death from blood loss.

The second accused (Coats) was charged with attempted murder and, in the alternative, intentionally causing grievous bodily harm with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. The Crown alleged that after the fight left both Parkinson and the deceased incapacitated from stab wounds, Coats emerged from nearby premises and struck the deceased repeatedly about the head with a mattock handle, uttering words expressing a desire that the deceased would not survive.

Coats pleaded guilty to the alternative charge (intentionally inflicting grievous bodily harm) but denied the specific intent to kill required for attempted murder. The Crown did not accept that plea in full discharge of the indictment, so the attempted murder charge proceeded to trial.

  • Whether the Crown proved beyond reasonable doubt that Parkinson was not acting in self-defence when he inflicted the fatal stab wound.
  • Whether the Crown proved beyond reasonable doubt that Parkinson had the specific intent to inflict very serious bodily injury, given the severity of his own wounds at the time.
  • Whether the partial defence of extreme provocation operated to reduce any murder verdict to manslaughter.
  • Whether the Crown proved beyond reasonable doubt that Coats struck the deceased with the actual specific intention to kill, as distinct from an intention to cause grievous bodily harm.
  • Whether Coats's level of intoxication at the time negated the formation of a specific intent to kill.

Decision

Parkinson: murder charge

Campbell J found that the Crown had not excluded self-defence beyond reasonable doubt. The key factual question was whether, at the moment Parkinson picked up the knife and struck, the threat from the deceased had genuinely ended. The evidence of a neighbour, Ms Campbell, was preferred in material respects over that of Ms Rolton, the deceased's estranged partner. On the preferred account, the deceased may still have been on top of Parkinson and continuing to attack him when the fatal blow was struck. Given the uncertainty in the sequence of events, the Crown could not establish beyond reasonable doubt that Parkinson was no longer acting defensively at the critical moment.

Because the self-defence issue was resolved in Parkinson's favour, the court did not need to determine whether extreme provocation would have reduced the verdict to manslaughter. Parkinson was acquitted of murder.

Coats: attempted murder charge

Campbell J accepted that Coats struck the deceased at least once with the mattock handle and that the blow was very vicious, causing facial fractures and a mild brain injury. However, the central question was whether Coats had the actual specific intent to kill, not merely to cause grievous bodily harm.

The court found Coats was intoxicated at the time by a combination of cannabis, alcohol, and some unspecified illicit drug. His post-incident police interview, conducted four hours later, showed rambling and incoherent thought patterns consistent with lingering intoxication. His words during the assault, while expressing hostility, did not clearly amount to a statement of specific intent to kill. Taking those factors together, the single blow (albeit severe), the ambiguous verbal expressions, and the degree of intoxication, the court was not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Coats had formed the specific purpose of killing the deceased. It was highly possible he acted without turning his mind to any specific purpose at all. Coats was therefore acquitted of attempted murder and convicted on his guilty plea to the lesser offence.

Orders Made

  • Parkinson: acquitted of the murder of Christopher Quirk; acquittal recorded on the indictment.
  • Coats: acquitted of the attempted murder of Christopher Quirk.
  • Coats: convicted of causing grievous bodily harm with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, contrary to s 33(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), on his plea of guilty to Count 3. Sentencing adjourned to a later date.

Key Takeaways

  • Self-defence under ss 418 and 419 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) requires the Crown to exclude it beyond reasonable doubt; where competing factual accounts leave genuine uncertainty about whether an accused was still under attack at the critical moment, that burden is not discharged.
  • A verdict of murder requires proof of specific intent. Where the evidence permits a reasonable inference that the accused struck out reactively during an ongoing assault without forming a specific intent, the mental element for murder may not be established.
  • Intoxication remains directly relevant to whether an accused formed an actual specific intent. Under s 27 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), evidence of intoxication can negate the specific intent required for attempted murder, even where it is clear the accused acted deliberately enough to cause grievous bodily harm.
  • Verbal expressions of hostility made during an assault do not automatically establish a specific intent to kill. The court assessed the language used in context alongside the accused's level of intoxication and the number of blows struck.
  • Guilty pleas to alternative charges do not bind the Crown; the prosecution retains the right to proceed on the more serious charge, as occurred here with the attempted murder count against Coats.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 18, 27, 33, 418, 419
- Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), ss 133, 365
- Evidence (Audio and Audio Visual Links) Act 1998 (NSW), ss 22C, 22C(7)

Cases
- Alford v Magee (1952) 85 CLR 437; [1952] HCA 3
- Douglass v The Queen (2012) 86 ALJR 1086; [2012] HCA 34
- R v Moffatt (2000) 112 A Crim R 201; [2000] NSWCCA 174
- R v Murray (1987) 11 NSWLR 12
- Smale v R [2007] NSWCCA 328