Citation: R v Grant [2002] NSWCCA 243; (2002) 55 NSWLR 80; (2002) 131 A Crim R 510
Court: NSW Court of Criminal Appeal
Date: 8 July 2002
Judge(s): Spigelman CJ; Wood CJ at CL; Kirby J
Background
The appellant was a 43-year-old man residing at a caravan park in Lightning Ridge who, on 27 November 1999, had spent most of the day drinking alcoholic cider. Shortly after midnight, having been refused service at the local bowling club due to his intoxicated state, he emerged from his caravan armed with a rifle.
The Crown alleged that the appellant walked toward three men talking in a nearby car park, shot and killed one of them at close range, and then chased a second man around a parked vehicle, firing a further shot in the direction of the fleeing man. That second shot lodged in the door of a nearby car. The appellant's defence was that he had lent his rifles to two other men earlier that evening and had no involvement in the shootings.
A jury in the Supreme Court at Dubbo convicted the appellant on two counts: murder (Count 1) and shooting with intent to murder (Count 2). He appealed against both convictions, raising issues centred on the trial judge's directions about the relevance of intoxication to each offence.
Legal Issues
- Whether the trial judge's directions to the jury on intoxication were adequate and correct in relation to the murder charge, specifically regarding the alternative basis of "reckless indifference to human life"
- Whether murder by reckless indifference to human life constitutes an offence of "specific intent" under Part 11A of the Crimes Act 1900, such that intoxication evidence is relevant to negate that mental state
- Whether, if the directions were flawed, the proviso applied so as to render the conviction safe despite the error
- Whether the verdict on Count 2 (shooting with intent to murder) was unreasonable or could not be supported by the evidence, or whether the jury should have entertained a reasonable doubt given the intoxication evidence
Decision
On the murder conviction (Count 1), the Court of Criminal Appeal found that the trial judge's directions to the jury concerning intoxication were in error. The central issue was whether reckless indifference to human life, as an alternative basis for a murder conviction, constitutes an offence of specific intent under Part 11A of the Crimes Act 1900. The Court held that it does, meaning that evidence of the appellant's intoxication was relevant and capable of negating the requisite mental state for that limb of murder.
Because the jury was directed on both the specific intent limb and the reckless indifference limb, and because the directions on intoxication in relation to reckless indifference were not correct, the Court could not be satisfied that the conviction on Count 1 was unaffected by the error. The proviso under the Criminal Appeal Act 1912, which allows a court to dismiss an appeal despite an error if no substantial miscarriage of justice has occurred, was not applied. The conviction and sentence for Count 1 were quashed and a new trial ordered.
On the shooting with intent to murder conviction (Count 2), the Court took a different view. It rejected the argument that the verdict was unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence. The Court also dismissed the contention that the jury, properly directed, should have entertained a reasonable doubt about whether intoxication negated the intent to murder. The appeal on Count 2 was dismissed and the conviction and sentence were upheld.
Orders Made
- Appeal against conviction on Count 1 (murder) allowed; conviction and sentence quashed
- New trial directed in relation to Count 1
- Appeal against conviction and sentence on Count 2 (shooting with intent to murder) dismissed
Key Takeaways
- Murder by reckless indifference to human life under the Crimes Act 1900 is an offence of specific intent for the purposes of Part 11A, meaning evidence of intoxication is relevant to whether an accused possessed the requisite mental state.
- Where a trial proceeds on alternative bases for murder (specific intent and reckless indifference), a misdirection on intoxication in relation to one of those alternatives may infect the verdict as a whole, making it impossible to apply the proviso to save the conviction.
- The proviso under the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 was not applied on the murder count because the Court could not be satisfied that the error had not caused a substantial miscarriage of justice.
- In dismissing the appeal on Count 2, the Court confirmed that a verdict of shooting with intent to murder was not unreasonable on the evidence, even accounting for the appellant's intoxicated state.
- Erroneous jury directions on intoxication do not automatically infect every conviction arising from the same trial; each count must be assessed separately on the nature of the error and its potential impact on the verdict.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 19A, 29, Part 11A
- Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW)
- Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth)
- Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW)
Cases
- Boughey v The Queen (1986) 161 CLR 10
- Crabbe v The Queen (1985) 156 CLR 464
- Director of Public Prosecutions v Beard [1920] AC 479
- He Kaw Teh v The Queen (1985) 157 CLR 527
- Jones v The Queen (1997) 72 ALJR 78
- M v The Queen (1993) 181 CLR 487
- Mackenzie v The Queen (1996) 190 CLR 348
- Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610
- Queen v O'Connor (1981) 146 CLR 64
- Regina v Ainsworth (1994) 76 A Crim R 127
- Regina v JB and RJH (1999) NSWCCA 93
- Regina v Majewski [1977] AC 443
- Royall v The Queen (1991) 172 CLR 378
- Wilson v The Queen (1992) 174 CLR 313
- Various other cases cited in the judgment as listed in the metadata