Carter v The King

This matter concerned an appeal by Mr Carter against his conviction. The dispute centred on the Crown's alleged failure to disclose crucial evidence, namely a breath-alcohol analysis, and various alleged misdirections by the trial judge to the jury. The appeal was heard by S Doyle, Stanley and Stein JJ of the Supreme Court of South Australia.

The legal issues before the Court included whether the fresh evidence of the breath-alcohol analysis, which was not disclosed at trial, created a substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice. The Court was also required to consider whether the Crown's failure to disclose this evidence constituted a breach of statutory and common law duties, leading to unfairness and a miscarriage of justice. Further issues involved alleged errors by the trial judge in failing to adequately direct the jury on the appellant's statements to police, his post-offence conduct, the meaning of "reasonable doubt," the dishonesty of a witness, and the identification evidence presented. The Court also had to determine if the verdict was unsafe or unsupported by the evidence, particularly concerning the appellant's intent and the capacity of his actions to prejudice the safe operation of an aircraft.

The Court acknowledged its power to receive fresh evidence on appeal and noted that a failure to disclose relevant evidence can lead to a quashing of a guilty verdict. It was established that the South Australian Police (SAPOL) had an obligation to disclose the breath-alcohol analysis results to the Director of Public Prosecutions, and the respondent was taken to have constructive knowledge of this information. The central question was whether the non-disclosure resulted in a miscarriage of justice, defined as depriving the accused of a chance of acquittal that was fairly open. The Court reiterated that a trial is not unfair if an accused, of their own volition, fails to call available evidence or evidence they could reasonably have been expected to discover. The Court considered whether the non-disclosure of the breath-alcohol analysis deprived Mr Carter of a fairly open chance of acquittal.

The Court found that the respondent accepted that the "alcotest" results should have been disclosed. However, the respondent contended that this failure did not result in a miscarriage of justice. The Court's consideration of this point, and the other grounds of appeal, would determine the final outcome of the appeal.