9 March 2011

Russell Field not guilty

| johnboy
Join the conversation
40

The Supreme Court has published the judgment of Chief Justice Higgins in finding Russell Field not guilty of the murder of Richard John Roberts and Gregory Peter Carrigan.

Chief Justice Higgins has accepted the defence argument that Russel was acting in self defence when what he thought were two members of the Rebels came calling:

It is apparent from this that the accused assumed that “the Rebels” were the persons who had intimidated his mother and uttered threats against him. He further assumed that the two men who came to his door on 24 March 2009 were, as then, seeking to take his property, as well as that of Witness 3, and do him serious injury if not kill him.

These fears, whether or not the deceased themselves intended physical harm of that order, were reasonable and I have no doubt were genuinely held by the accused. His primary purpose therefore was to avoid harm to himself. If he was only concerned for his property I think he would have surrendered “the list” he referred to. Indeed, he said as much.

I appreciate that to rebut either provocation or self-defence the prosecution bears the onus of proof but, in this case, I am left in no doubt that the accused, when he decided to obtain his shot-gun was motivated by a well-founded fear that if he did not defend himself from the deceased he would be seriously injured or killed. I am not in so finding, expressing satisfaction that the deceased had that intention. I think it likely that their primary purpose was to get the drop-saw but I think also that they were taking advantage of that purpose to get any other items that could have been property of Witness 3, at least in their minds, and further to terrorise the accused in retaliation for his supposed ill-treatment of Witness 3.

Join the conversation

40
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

Tooks said :

Really? Does anyone else think the same way? An unarmed man who has just seen his mate shot to death, chases the killer – who is still holding the shotgun – down the street with the intent to kill him?

Sorta like those bugs bunny cartoons were Bugs and Elma Fudd get confused and Bugs ends up chasing Elma Fudd who’s got his shotgun in hand …….

You don’t take bare fists to a gun fight ……. knowing a firearm has been used and then chasing that man who has the gun with only your fists ….. nobody is that stupid. Face to face, yeah fight for your life, but if you have enough of a upper hand to chase someone with a firearm, you have enough to exit stage left too, which any reasonable person would do.

“Really? Does anyone else think the same way? An unarmed man who has just seen his mate shot to death, chases the killer – who is still holding the shotgun – down the street with the intent to kill him?

I don’t just don’t buy it.”

actually i read it the other way, i think fields had more to fear from the second guy. I gotta give him credit for chasing a guy with a loaded shotgun. of course there’s the old adage of “dont bring bare hands to a gunfight” certainly not the smartest thing to do.

rebels etc pride themselves for living outside the law. i dont see why they should receive any protection from it

Well reading all, I can understand him being scared, and the Rebels do harass if they want something that is not theirs, they think they have a god given right! He is a young man that was taken advantage of by many, especially the 38 year old woman, she knew what she was doing by getting the Rebels to go to his home and threaten the accused and mother. And believe me they do threaten, face to face, and on the phone indirectly, but you know what they are getting at, it’s an indirect threat.

Clown Killer12:24 am 10 Mar 11

KTQ we don’t need to know the victims to know that it’s a fact that they were complete and utter scum bags. One was a member of the Rebels and one was prepared to hang around with a member of the Rebels. End of story … Did I mention they died like cowards …

#13 Chaz “At least he got rid of a couple of scum bags. Fine by me”

You knew the victims? I expect not given that remark. I knew Greg Carrigan and he was not a scum bag.

ABC News ” No-one has been convicted of murder in Canberra since 1998″. The ACT Justice system is a farce !

I can see how he came to the decision to acquit for the murder of Carrigan, because Field’s version of events was at least a little bit plausible (despite the fact Carrigan was shot through the hand, as he obviously saw what was coming).

158. As I have said, there is no doubt in my mind that, after Mr Carrigan was shot, Mr Roberts would have killed the accused if he had caught him.

Really? Does anyone else think the same way? An unarmed man who has just seen his mate shot to death, chases the killer – who is still holding the shotgun – down the street with the intent to kill him?

I don’t just don’t buy it.

Sleaz274 said :

Two words…overwhelming force

Peace… Through superior fire power.

Mr Gillespie12:51 pm 09 Mar 11

Sleaz274 said :

……….And woah woah “pyscho chick from last week”?? You’d do well to read the thread regarding that one before making any more comments like that…….

What are you saying, that killer WASN’T a psycho chick??

Agreed Skid, that’s how it was meant to be, and is now fixed.

Jb: the link in the article should presuably be to the actual Judgement:
http://www.courts.act.gov.au/supreme/judgments/field.htm

Tooks said :

Which part in particular did they fail?

Seriously, just read the judgement.

Although I normally think Higgins is a joke, I’m DPP-beating on this one.
This time it reads like he was unimpressed that the DPP didn’t provide or receive sufficient evidence to convict, didn’t build a solid case off the evidence they did provide, didn’t sufficiently cross examine, failed to prove the defence claims of self-defence unreasonable…

Next TV Series ………. Canberra Underbelly ….. where everyone walks free!!!!

Grumpy Old Fart11:40 am 09 Mar 11

It wouldn’t matter whether he was found guilty or not guilty as he will spend the rest of his life looking over his shoulder. Why do you think he was held in protective custody whilst in the Hume Hilton? His best option would be a hut on the farside of Antartica.

As for ‘no’ Justice Higgins well there is no more that can be said other than if you are charged ask for a judge only trial before Higgins

Heavs said :

Tooks said :

Heavs said :

DPP fail. On fire.

Which part in particular did they fail?

I just prefer to take a different tack to the judge bashing. Majority on here blame the judiciary without any knowledge of the case. I blame the DPP – as the agency responsible they provided unsatisfactory evidence to convict. Whether that opinion is justified or not shouldn’t really matter judging on the volume of bush lawyers on here that choose to tee off on the umpire as soon as an acquittal is reported without even having read the judgment or looked at the evidence that was considered.

Totally agree. Given the DPP’s recent poor track record, Mr Corbell should be looking at ways to have that Agency lift its game.

No self defence shouldn’t be proportional otherwise both parties (attacker and defender) would end up dead.

Two words…overwhelming force

And woah woah “pyscho chick from last week”?? You’d do well to read the thread regarding that one before making any more comments like that.

Porrit however I agree with you. 58 stab wounds without an intent to kill??

And if these 1% motorcycle clubs want to pretend that they live outside the law and handle their own matters then it seems only just and fair that they lose a couple of standover men in the course of duty and the guy who pulled the trigger is let off by wider society.

Tooks said :

Heavs said :

DPP fail. On fire.

Which part in particular did they fail?

I just prefer to take a different tack to the judge bashing. Majority on here blame the judiciary without any knowledge of the case. I blame the DPP – as the agency responsible they provided unsatisfactory evidence to convict. Whether that opinion is justified or not shouldn’t really matter judging on the volume of bush lawyers on here that choose to tee off on the umpire as soon as an acquittal is reported without even having read the judgment or looked at the evidence that was considered.

I hope he is in protective custody, other wise it’s a matter of time before he disappears.

Heavs said :

DPP fail. On fire.

Which part in particular did they fail?

People would be well advised to read the judgement prior to jumping to conclusions in this particular case.

Snave81 said :

When does the concept of self defence end? After shooting the first guy on your property or chasing the second guy onto the street and shooting him there? Was Russell Field found guilty for anything, firearms offences maybe if the weapon was illegal?

My American friends have advised me that the correct technique is to shoot the offender, ensure that he’s dead and then fire several “warning shots” into the roof. When the cops arrive, just reverse the order in which you fired when you tell them your story.

And I’d like to know about the legality and consequences of the firearms possession as well. Is it Ok to have an illegal firearm, as long as you shoot someone with it? What about illegal knives?

Erg0 said :

As I understand it, the general principle is that to be found not guilty by way of self defence you must hold a reasonable belief that you’re in danger of being seriously hurt or killed, and you must use proportionate force.

For the sake of accuracy, I should point out that my own link above has informed me that this is no longer true. As of 1987, the test for self defence in Australia is as follows:

“The question to be asked in the end is quite simple. It is whether the accused believed upon reasonable grounds that it was necessary in self-defence to do what he did. If he had that belief and there were reasonable grounds for it, or if the jury is left in reasonable doubt about the matter, then he is entitled to an acquittal.”

buzz819 said :

Heavs said :

DPP fail. On fire.

, it isn’t helping the victims, it isn’t helping people feel safe, it isn’t helping in lowering the crime rate.

We need Batman….Nolan’s Batman, that is! 🙂

Clown Killer4:21 pm 08 Mar 11

” … one of the victims was on his knees when he was shot.”

Died on his knees like a coward apparently. Yep. The Rebels have a bit of ground to make up in terms of their hardman image.

I think that the standard was set by a female security guard in Melbourne or Sydney (can’t remember which) a couple of years ago – she was beaten and robbed of $50,000-odd in cash by some drugged up douche bag. The assailant was in his car driving away – and despite there being no further danger to herself she managed to run after him and blow half his head off through the window of his car … self defence, naturally.

georgesgenitals4:07 pm 08 Mar 11

Erg0 said :

A bit of a primer on self defence in Australia, thanks to Google:
http://law.anu.edu.au/criminet/tselfd.html

Interestingly, it seems that being a paranoid schizophrenic is helpful to your case.

Very interesting linky, it seems that self-defense is a bit wider than I had previously thought.

johnboy said :

spicoli said :

Higgins is a disgrace, and a blight on the Justice system.

There is no justice in the ACT Supreme Court. It is a pointless building.

I dunno, I personally thought this was a pretty strong self-defence case.

According to this report, http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/04/17/2546164.htm police believed one of the victims was on his knees when he was shot. (Perhaps begging for mercy.) Self defence seems a big call under those cicumstances.

Heavs said :

DPP fail. On fire.

I’m not their biggest fan at the moment, but I must say the DPP just can’t win with this cretin on the bench.

He has to think that every person walking around Canberra is one step away from killing people. Until he is gone and there is a more liberal approach to crime and punishment in this town people will continue to get away with murder.

This person has taken two people’s lives, yes it is apparent that they were trying to “stand over” him, did he do anything about it, legally I mean?

It is a disgrace that someone can get away with this, in this matter AND with that psycho chick that got let off last week AND with Porritt… Who else will get away with it?

Self defense should be a legitimate defense, but it has to be proportional to the amount of violence that he was defending himself from.

How many injuries did he have, how many weapons were the victims carrying. I know the victims were not nice people, but they are still someones sons, fathers, brothers, whatever, the law they broke by harassing this young man would not have equated to them being put in gaol.

Did you kill someone, yes, it wasn’t premeditated, you will be found not guilty for murder, but locked up for 10 years for manslaughter, this is how these things should play out!

The court system needs to be scrapped and started again. This human rights bullshit is only giving rights to those that are breaking the laws, it isn’t helping the victims, it isn’t helping people feel safe, it isn’t helping in lowering the crime rate. A night club can’t even reject someone with out them going to the human rights commission.

Rehabilitation without consequence does not work.

DPP fail. On fire.

From a legal perspective I’d call it ‘border-line’ self defence. You have to be in immediate fear of your life that physical harm will occur ‘then and there’ – it isn’t sufficient that you can run away, escape, etc. Seems a bit of a bow to draw – but there it is I guess. Justice Higgins strikes another one for the ACT Judicial system.

Now let’s see what the Rebels do……………………………I agree with the other threads that they will have to do something to save face. Otherwise, they may be handing some colours back!

At least he got rid of a couple of scum bags. Fine by me

When does the concept of self defence end? After shooting the first guy on your property or chasing the second guy onto the street and shooting him there? Was Russell Field found guilty for anything, firearms offences maybe if the weapon was illegal?

A bit of a primer on self defence in Australia, thanks to Google:
http://law.anu.edu.au/criminet/tselfd.html

Interestingly, it seems that being a paranoid schizophrenic is helpful to your case.

I don’t think it’s exactly a precedent, this certainly wouldn’t be the first time someone’s shot a burglar in self defence and been found not guilty. Perhaps the first time in the ACT, but the concept isn’t exactly new.

As I understand it, the general principle is that to be found not guilty by way of self defence you must hold a reasonable belief that you’re in danger of being seriously hurt or killed, and you must use proportionate force. It then comes down to the definitions of “reasonable” and “proportional”, but if a hoodie-wearing crack fiend breaks into your house and brandishes a rusty knife at you then you’d probably be ok to double-tap him with your handgun of choice.

johnboy said :

spicoli said :

Higgins is a disgrace, and a blight on the Justice system.

I wished the newspaper in this city, held the Courts to account better than they do. Try and find when Higgins last convicted anybody of murder – or anything substantial. Look up the Glen Porritt finding.

I feel very sorry for victims of crime. Nobody speaks for them. Human Rights/Civil Liberties seem to be the last defence only for scoundrels. Good people can suffer.

There is no justice in the ACT Supreme Court. It is a pointless building.

I dunno, I personally thought this was a pretty strong self-defence case.

Fark yeah, I think if I was in the same situation that I probably would have had my rifle loaded too.

spicoli said :

Higgins is a disgrace, and a blight on the Justice system.

I wished the newspaper in this city, held the Courts to account better than they do. Try and find when Higgins last convicted anybody of murder – or anything substantial. Look up the Glen Porritt finding.

I feel very sorry for victims of crime. Nobody speaks for them. Human Rights/Civil Liberties seem to be the last defence only for scoundrels. Good people can suffer.

There is no justice in the ACT Supreme Court. It is a pointless building.

I dunno, I personally thought this was a pretty strong self-defence case.

Higgins is a disgrace, and a blight on the Justice system.

I wished the newspaper in this city, held the Courts to account better than they do. Try and find when Higgins last convicted anybody of murder – or anything substantial. Look up the Glen Porritt finding.

I feel very sorry for victims of crime. Nobody speaks for them. Human Rights/Civil Liberties seem to be the last defence only for scoundrels. Good people can suffer.

There is no justice in the ACT Supreme Court. It is a pointless building.

EvanJames said :

Sets a precedent too…. If you can convince the judge that the burgular was very frightening, you might now be allowed to shoot him.

Capt RAAF will be pleased to hear that.

ConanOfCooma12:24 pm 08 Mar 11

Rebels? Meh.

They tried to move into Cooma back in 2000, but had their first club house shot to s*** in a drive by – Bear wasn’t happy.

The Common Chair Throwers then punched the s*** out of a few Rebs on a Poker Run, but I don’t think that info made it back to the Boss, and they were again quiet for a while.

Then there was the patch theft, again by the Common Chair Throwers, in 2003, methinks. After that they shut down the second club house and retreated back to Canberra/Queanbo.

Ever since, they don’t dare show their faces.

I don’t think they are the force they believe themselves to be – Hell, you can wake up after a party as a Rebel.

Sets a precedent too. I wonder how far self defence in one’s home can now be taken in the ACT? If you can convince the judge that the burgular was very frightening, you might now be allowed to shoot him.

buzz819 said :

So I guess now he gets released and the Rebels seek revenge?

They have a fair bit of reputation to rebuild if they want to be taken seriously as a bikie gang.

Higgins obviously thinks there’s a lot of people out there who are only seconds away from committing seriously acts of violence at any time.
I wonder if I should be more fearful about walking around Canberra and the people around me.? At least that way i’ll be ready for a self-defence charge if anything bad may happen.

So I guess now he gets released and the Rebels seek revenge?

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.