Updates and background for this project (Digest)
A project funded by the NSW Law Reform Commission and
the Macquarie University External Collaborative Grant Scheme.
Appendix C: Written directions referred to by judge
REGINA v RODNEY IVAN KERR
Written Directions
A. (COUNT 1): MANSLAUGHTER BY AN UNLAWFUL AND DANGEROUS ACT
Before you can convict the accused of manslaughter by an unlawful and dangerous act, you must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt:-
1. that William Christopher died;
AND
2. that his death was caused by the deliberate act(s) of the accused; [see note (i)]
AND
3. that the act(s) of the accused was (were):
Notes re Manslaughter by an Unlawful and Dangerous Act
(i) “Did cause the death”
The Crown must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the act or acts of the accused caused the death of the deceased.
You should approach the question of causation in a common sense non-technical way, appreciating that you are determining criminal responsibility for serious criminal offences.
The test is whether the act or acts of the accused significantly or substantially contributed to the death of the deceased.
Where the conduct of the accused induces in the victim a well-founded apprehension of physical harm, such that it was reasonable for the victim to seek to escape, then the fact that the death occurs in the course of that escape does not break the chain of causation, provided the response of the victim was reasonable or proportionate having regarding to the nature of the conduct of the accused, and the fear it is likely to have provoked.
In determining whether the response of the deceased is reasonable or proportionate, you should take account of all the circumstances, including the way in which a person, fearful for his own safety, and forced to react on the spur of the moment, may react.
It is for the Crown to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the response of the deceased was reasonable or proportionate having regard to the nature of the conduct of the accused, and the fear it is likely to have provoked.
If you are not satisfied, the accused must be acquitted of manslaughter. Your verdict would be “not guilty” to Count 1.
(ii) An “unlawful act”
Where the accused acts recklessly or with the intention of raising in the mind of another an apprehension of immediate physical violence, that is an assault, and an unlawful act.
A “dangerous act”
An act is dangerous if a reasonable person in the position of the accused would have realised (whether or not the accused in fact realised) that it exposed another person to an appreciable risk of serious injury.
B. ALTERNATIVE (COUNT 2): AFFRAY
Before you can convict the accused of affray, you must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt:-
1. that on 27 October 2002 the accused, by acts and words, threatened unlawful violence against William Christopher Harris:
AND
2. that the accused intended to threaten violence against William Christopher Harris, or was aware that his words and acts may threaten such violence;
AND
3. that the acts and words of the accused were such as would cause a person of reasonable firmness, present at the scene, to fear for his personal safety.
C. FURTHER ALTERNATIVE (COUNT 3): RAILWAY CHARGE
Before you can convict the accused of the offence contained within the third count in the indictment, you must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt:-
1. that on 27 October 2002, William Christopher Harris was a person on a railway, namely Redfern Station;
AND
2. that the said day, the accused did an unlawful act, namely, by words and conduct, intentionally or recklessly raising in the mind of William Christopher Harris an apprehension of immediate physical violence;
AND
3. that the accused thereby endangered the safety of William Christopher Harris.
