R v Anthony Mark James [2015] NSWSC 1831

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Anthony Mark James [2015] NSWSC 1831 Hearing dates: 23-26 November 2015 & 30 November 2015 Date of orders: 03 December 2015 Decision date: 03 December 2015 Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal Before: Hidden J Decision: Verdict of not guilty Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – trial by judge alone – manslaughter – killing by a single stab wound – self-defence – main issue whether accused's conduct was a reasonable response to the circumstances as he perceived them Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 Cases Cited: R v Conlon (1993) 69 A Crim R 92 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Regina (Crown) Anthony Mark James (accused) Representation: Counsel: Mr L Lungo (Crown) Mr K Averre (accused)

Solicitors: Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Crown) Legal Aid Commission (accused) File Number(s): 2011/174642 Publication restriction: No

Judgment 1. HIS HONOUR: The accused, Anthony Mark James, is on trial before me, sitting without a jury, upon an indictment charging the manslaughter of a man named in the indictment as Dana Lomas at Doonside on 26 May 2011. It is alleged that the accused killed the deceased by a single stab wound in the course of a violent confrontation between the two men at the townhouse where they were living at the time. 2. The accused is alleged to have committed manslaughter by an unlawful and dangerous act. There is no issue that he inflicted the fatal wound and that that act was dangerous but, in any event, there is ample evidence to satisfy me of both those things beyond reasonable doubt. The issue is self-defence. To adopt the language of s 418 of the Crimes Act 1900, it is the accused's case that he stabbed the deceased because he believed that it was necessary to do so to defend himself, and that his conduct was a reasonable response in the circumstances as he perceived them. Of course, he does not bear the burden of proving either of those things. He is entitled to be acquitted unless the Crown proves beyond a reasonable doubt that he did not believe that his conduct was necessary to defend himself, or that it was not a reasonable response in the circumstances as he perceived them. 3. Most of the evidence is undisputed, and the primary focus of these reasons is upon the fatal event. There is evidence by way of background, particularly directed to the relationship between the two men, which can be summarised briefly. This is a re-trial, following a successful appeal against conviction in an earlier trial, and a significant proportion of the evidence has been presented through transcripts of evidence given in the previous trial. The accused did not give evidence before me. That, of course, was his right and gives rise to no adverse inference against him.