Case brief: REGINA v. MARTIN DYOS Central Criminal Court Crim. L. Rev. 660-62 (1979)

Use the provided format.

CASE BRIEFING FORMAT PROF. DOBSON CASE NAME, COURT & YEAR FACTS: crime(s) facts leading to alleged criminal act; facts behind any defense PROCEDURAL POSTURE procedurally what happened in each lower court & why (if given) track procedurally how case went through court system to get to the court where the opinion is from ISSUES (PHRASE THESE AS QUESTIONS!) RESULT (DECISION; JUDGMENT): How did the Court procedurally dispose of the case? HOLDING: What rule(s) of law did the Court's decision announce? REASONING: Reconstruct the reasoning process step-by-step that led the Court to its Holding and Result CONCURRENCES (IF ANY) DISSENTS (IF ANY) ALL BRIEFS MUST BE DONE ON HARD COPY; READY TO TURN IN READ THE FOOTNOTES! USE BULLET POINTS IN DOING YOUR BRIEF BE OVER-INCLUSIVE RATHER THAN UNDER-INCLUSIVE! REGINA v. MARTIN DYOS Central Criminal Court Crim. L. Rev. 660-62 (1979) CanTLEY, J. A Friday night dance at a Community Center was attended by a group of seven youths. The deceased, RM, was one of these as was also SK who at one stage danced near two girls \"he was cocky and showing off.\" The boyfriend, BT, of one of the girls was incensed by this; when the seven left shortly before the end of the dance he encouraged the four friends with him to follow to \"give us a hand.\" At the exit to the dance hall there was some general abuse and threats directed at SK. The seven went towards the railway station to find a taxi; the five followed at a distance continuing their abuse and threats. When the seven crossed the road the five followed, and were by now closing up. One of the five, MD, and possibly others, were seen to pick up stones/bricks and throw them. One stone thrown by MD hit PS, one of the seven, on the back of the head. Momentarily stunned, he turned, took off his jacket, challenged the five, advanced, and hit BT. This immediately turned into a scuffle or fight involving for certain PS, SK, MB, and RM from the seven and BT, IS, and KW of the five. The fight lasted no more than a minute or so as RM was spotted lying in the road by his twin brother GM, bleeding from severe head injuries whereupon the five fled and emergency services was called. One of RM's injuries, that to his right forehead, was caused by a brick held by MD. What had happened, in MD's own words to the police was this: Matey threw a punch at me and | ran away . ... | was hit in back by brick as | was going to jump on wall . ... | picked up a brick and started towards one | thought had chucked brick at me . ... [H]e started to run and | went to throw it but | was running and | hit him before | could let it go. | misjudged the distance. RM survived nine days before succumbing to his injuries; in the meantime all involved were questioned. No evidence was offered against any of the seven; all of the five were indicted with unlawful assembly to which they pleaded guilty, affray which they all denied, MD alone being charged with murder and grievous bodily harm . .. to RM. At the post mortem it was found that apart from a very few slight marks on the right hand side of the body, legs, and arms, all the injuries were confined to the head, of which the two principal were the one caused by MD to the right forehead and one behind the right ear for which there was no evidence as to the cause. As to the cause of death the following is a summary of the pathologist''s conclusions: 1. The cause of death was cerebral contusion due to a fractured skull. RM received two or more separate blows. There was no evidence as to whether they were caused by the same or different objects, be it metal, wood, masonry, and/or a shod foot. Both principal wounds were potentially fatal. No distinction was made as to the seriousness of either wound. Either wound would \"very probably\" cause death. o o koW There was no certain way of telling which injury came first. 7. There was a \"reasonable and sensible\" possibility that the deceased might have recovered from the first injury, whichever that was. In addition to the medical evidence, there was no evidence as to how the second injury was caused, apart from speculation at the time of RM hitting one of the many passing vehicles or of his being swung around and thrown into the traffic. Likewise apart from traces of blood on at least one of the five's shoes (which probably came from kicking SK in the mouth) there was no evidence of blood being found on any blunt object, shoe, brick or kerb. Nor were there any traces of material such as the brick dust in the wounds. The only evidence against MD was that he struck the one blow to the right forehead; and there was no evidence of joint enterprise as to either wound. On the count of murder the trial judge upheld the defence submission at the close of the prosecution that it would be unsafe to leave the count to the jury. These submissions were as follows: The Crown had failed to prove that MD was responsible for the cause of death because, (a) the pathologist's evidence was that it was a reasonable and sensible possibility that the injury behind the ear caused the death, and ... there was no evidence that MD was responsible for it, (b) and conversely there was no evidence that the injury which MD (admitted) having caused, was in fact beyond a reasonable doubt the cause of death. MD could only be guilty if death was a natural and probable consequence of his act. Even if the forehead injury caused by MD was the first injury there was a reasonable and sensible possibility of recovery. MD's act cannot be held to be the cause of death if that event would or could have occurred without it. Before the count of murder could go to the jury the Crown had to exclude the possibility ... that death was ... caused by another injury. It was conceded by the defence that if as a result of what MD did the Crown could show, e.g., that RM was struck by a passing car, then MD's act would have been a substantial cause of death. There was no evidence of this (and in fact the Crown sought to exclude this possibility). If the ear injury was caused by a brick and that was the cause of death (and the pathologist said both were reasonable possibilities) there was no evidence that MD (or anyone else) did it. Therefore, in sum: 1. there was another injury 2. that injury may reasonably have been the cause of death 3. thatinjury cannot be shewn not to have been the cause of death . . . . After the judge's ruling MD changed his plea to guilty on Count 1 (affray) and Count 4 (grievous bodily harm)