R v Castaneda (No. 3) [2015] NSWSC 1104

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Castaneda (No. 3) [2015] NSWSC 1104 Hearing dates: 21 July 2015 Date of orders: 21 July 2015 Decision date: 23 July 2015 Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal Before: Wilson J Decision: 1. Verdict of not guilty directed on the charge of murder. 2. Application for Prasad direction on the alternative charge of manslaughter is refused. Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – procedure – trial before a jury – application for a directed verdict – whether evidence adduced by the Crown capable of supporting a verdict of guilty – inability of evidence to negative issue of self-defence – question of whether Prasad direction should be given in relation to alternative charge of manslaughter Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 Cases Cited: Doney v The Queen [1990] HCA 51; 171 CLR 207 R v LK [2010] HCA 17; 241 CLR 177 R v Prasad (1979) 2 A Crim R 45; (1979) 23 SASR 161 Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: Regina Marcela Castaneda Representation: Counsel: P Barrett (Crown) P Strickland SC (Accused)

Solicitors: Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Crown) Watsons Lawyers (Accused) File Number(s): 2013/56854 Publication restriction: Restricted to parties until a verdict is reached,Verdict returned on 30 July 2015

Judgment 1. On 15 July 2015 the accused was arraigned before a jury panel on an indictment charging her with the murder of Gregory Peck, on 22 February 2013, at Cecil Hills in the State of New South Wales. 2. On 21 July 2015, at the end of the Crown case, I acceded to an application from her to direct the jury to return a verdict of not guilty to that charge. I declined an application to give the jury a direction in accordance with R v Prasad (1979) 2 A Crim R 45; (1979) 23 SASR 161, with respect to the alternative charge of manslaughter. 3. These are my reasons for those decisions. 4. This is a case in which the issue of self-defence has always loomed large. The Crown case in summary is that, after an argument between the accused and the deceased, her de facto partner, at the couple's home on the late evening of 22 February 2013, the accused inflicted a single stab wound to Mr. Peck's chest. The wound penetrated some fifteen centimetres into the body, penetrating Mr. Peck's heart. The wound was of a type that was unlikely to be survivable, even if medical treatment had been rendered immediately. Although the accused immediately contacted the triple 0 emergency operator, and ambulance officers arrived at the location very quickly, Mr. Peck was declared dead at 12.30am on 23 February 2013 after his arrival at hospital. 5. The accused was arrested at the scene and taken to the Green Valley Police Station. She was subsequently charged with Mr. Peck's murder. 6. The Crown opened its case to the jury in this way. "The issue for you in this trial will ultimately be twofold. The issue will be why did she stab him and was it done in self-defence. Or on the Crown case, was it done in retaliation for the dispute; the argument that had been taking place, and in earlier actions by the deceased towards Ms Castaneda." (T65:39 - 43). […] Ms Castaneda spoke to the triple-0 operator when she called for assistance shortly after she stabbed Mr Peck and I expect you'll hear that version this afternoon. She also spoke with police who attended shortly afterwards and she gave an account to them of what happened. I expect you'll also hear that account this afternoon. It's those two accounts; the first given to the triple-0 operator over the telephone and the second to police officers who first attended that will be the primary focus of your consideration of the issues in this trial (T65:48 – T66:07). […] It's the Crown case that when you consider what she told the triple 0 operators and then what she subsequently told the police officers at the house, and then what she later told her former husband about what had happened. When you compare those you will see that there's a distinction or a difference between the accounts. The first account was that she thought he was going to hit her, the latter account was that he had taken her by the throat and then released her and then she'd got the knife and following that had stabbed him (T68:47 – T69:03). […] It's the Crown case that albeit it was during or after an argument between Ms Castaneda and the deceased, in circumstances where the deceased had been drinking heavily, at their home on the Friday evening, that Ms Castaneda did not act genuinely in self-defence when she stabbed the accused, but did so in retaliation or because of having been provoked in the lay sense of having been angered by what had happened to her shortly before that, and had happened to her in this argument that they were having about their intended, but postponed, wedding in the circumstances of their relationship (T71:43 – T71:50)." 1. It was the Crown's contention that it would prove to the requisite standard that the accused stabbed Mr. Peck, not in self-defence but in retaliation or in anger, which has not been borne out by the evidence. 2. In support of the application for a directed verdict Mr. Strickland, senior counsel for the accused, referred to particular aspects of the evidence led in the Crown case which raised the issue of self-defence, something which he submitted the Crown had failed to negative.