AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
District Court 3 February 2021

R v Trimmings

[2021] NSWDC 156

HomicideDomestic & family violence
CRIMINAL LAW JUDGE ALONE TRIAL MANSLAUGHTER NO OBVIOUS SIGNS OF INJURY ‘SORRY BUSINESS’ DOMESTIC RELATIONSHIP

Citation: R v Trimmings [2021] NSWDC 156
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 3 February 2021
Judge: Grant DCJ

Background

The accused was in a domestic relationship with the deceased, Ingrid Driver. The two had moved from South Australia to Albury in late 2017 and were living together in a one-bedroom apartment. In the early morning of 30 April 2018, the accused called triple-0 to report that the deceased was unconscious with blood coming from her mouth or nose. He told the operator he had left the address and could not return.

Police and ambulance found the deceased on a sofa bed. There were no obvious external injuries, though blood was present near her and on a bathroom door frame. She was taken to Albury Hospital and pronounced dead later that evening. The cause of death was a right subdural haemorrhage, with alcoholic liver disease and broncho-pneumonia recorded as contributing conditions. The autopsy revealed bruising on the neck, upper arms, and buttocks, and an area of bruising on internal examination of the scalp, but no acute injuries to the mouth, lips, or gums.

The Crown charged the accused with manslaughter, alleging he assaulted the deceased and that the assault caused her death by an unlawful and dangerous act. The accused had no injuries to his hands at the time of his arrest. The Crown's case was entirely circumstantial.

  • Whether the Crown established beyond reasonable doubt, in a circumstantial case, that the accused committed an unlawful and dangerous act that caused or substantially contributed to the deceased's death
  • Whether relationship evidence (prior incidents of alleged domestic violence in South Australia and Albury) was admissible and, if so, what weight it carried
  • Whether certain statements by witnesses, including hearsay accounts of prior assaults, were admissible under the Evidence Act 1995
  • Whether the accused's conduct in leaving the apartment and calling triple-0 from a public telephone amounted to consciousness of guilt
  • Whether the expert medical evidence, in light of the deceased's significantly compromised health, was consistent with a reasonable hypothesis of innocence

Decision

Grant DCJ conducted a judge alone trial and found the accused not guilty, entering a verdict of acquittal.

On the relationship evidence, the court admitted evidence of prior conduct by the accused toward the deceased in both South Australia and Albury, on the basis that it provided context for the Crown's allegations. This included accounts from neighbours who heard the accused make repeated and explicit threats to harm the deceased in the months leading up to her death. However, the court noted that the South Australian evidence was remote in time, and one account in the deceased's mother's statement, which involved a hearsay report of an assault, was rejected as inadmissible firsthand hearsay.

On the medical evidence, the court focused closely on testimony from the forensic pathologist, Dr Vuletic, and a report from defence expert Dr Duflou. Dr Vuletic conceded that the subdural haemorrhage could have resulted from minor trauma occurring the evening before, with bleeding developing overnight. The court accepted that the deceased's severe health conditions, including end-stage liver failure with coagulopathy (a condition impairing the blood's ability to clot), meant that only a slight to moderate trauma was required to cause the fatal bleed. Grant DCJ noted that even if there had been a blow or slap, the evidence did not establish that a reasonable person in the accused's position would have appreciated that such an act would expose the deceased to the risk of serious injury, given the underlying conditions were not visible.

On consciousness of guilt, the Crown pointed to the accused leaving the apartment and using a public telephone. The court rejected this inference, accepting the defence explanation that the accused had outstanding South Australia warrants and feared being wrongly blamed. The accused's statement that "they will blame me for this" was treated as consistent with a belief he would be falsely accused, not with guilty knowledge. Having regard to all the evidence, the court was satisfied there remained a reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence, and the Crown had not excluded it beyond reasonable doubt.

Orders Made

  • A verdict of not guilty was entered and an acquittal was recorded in favour of the accused.

Key Takeaways

  • In a circumstantial case for manslaughter, the Crown must exclude every reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence beyond reasonable doubt; the District Court found that this threshold was not met where expert evidence left open the possibility of minor incidental trauma causing death in a person with severely compromised health.

  • Relationship evidence, including prior acts of alleged domestic violence, is admissible not as tendency evidence but to provide context within which the alleged conduct can be properly understood, following Harriman v The Queen (1989) 167 CLR 590 and R v Toki (2000) 116 A Crim R 536.

  • Hearsay accounts of prior assaults, relayed through a third party and not falling within a statutory exception under the Evidence Act 1995, will be rejected even where they form part of relationship evidence.

  • The "dangerous act" element of manslaughter requires that a reasonable person in the accused's position would have appreciated the act exposed the victim to an appreciable risk of serious injury; where the victim's vulnerability was not observable, this element may not be satisfied even if some force was applied.

  • Conduct after an offence, such as leaving a scene and calling emergency services from a distance, does not necessarily establish consciousness of guilt where an alternative explanation, such as outstanding warrants or a fear of false accusation, is reasonably open on the evidence.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 18(b)
- Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 65

Cases
- Barca v The Queen (1975) 133 CLR 82
- Frawley (1992) 69 A Crim R 208
- Harriman v The Queen (1989) 167 CLR 590
- Peacock v The King (1911) 13 CLR 619
- Plomp v The Queen (1963) 110 CLR 234
- R v AM (2000) 117 A Crim R 176
- R v PL [2009] NSWCCA 256
- R v Toki (2000) 116 A Crim R 536
- The Queen v Baden-Clay (2016) 258 CLR 308
- Thomas v The Queen (1960) 102 CLR 584
- Wilson v The Queen (1970) 123 CLR 334