Coghlan v Police - [2007] SASC 312

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Magistrates Appeals: Criminal)
COGHLAN v POLICE
[2007] SASC 312
Judgment of The Honourable Justice Sulan
23 August 2007
MAGISTRATES - JURISDICTION AND PROCEDURE GENERALLY - PROCEDURE - THE HEARING - MATTERS RELATING TO DECISION
APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL - GENERAL PRINCIPLES - RIGHT OF APPEAL - WHEN APPEAL LIES - ERROR OF LAW - PARTICULAR CASES INVOLVING ERROR OF LAW - FAILURE TO GIVE REASONS FOR DECISION - EXTENT OF OBLIGATION TO GIVE REASONS - GENERALLY
Appellant charged with four offences arising out of one incident - complainant was sole prosecution eyewitness and identified the appellant - appellant denied involvement and several defence witnesses gave evidence supporting an alibi defence - Magistrate found that defence witnesses had tried to recollect accurately the day of the incident - Magistrate found nevertheless that evidence of defence witnesses was 'unsafe, tainted and unreliable' - whether Magistrate had given adequate reasons for rejecting defence evidence - held, allowing appeal, Magistrate failed adequately to explain reasons for rejecting defence evidence of alibi.
Juries Act 1927 s 7, referred to.
Gikas v Police (1999) 202 LSJS 301; R v Keyte (2000) 78 SASR 68, applied.
R v Power (2003) 141 A Crim R 203, distinguished.
Papps v Police (2000) 77 SASR 210; Pettit v Dunkley [1971] 1 NSWLR 376; Soulezemis v Dudley (Holdings) Pty Ltd (1987) 10 NSWLR 247, considered.

COGHLAN v POLICE
[2007] SASC 312
Magistrates Appeal
SULAN J:
Introduction

The appellant was charged with four offences: assault occasioning actual bodily harm, wilful damage to property, threatening to cause harm and larceny. The offences were all alleged to have arisen from the same incident on 17 April 2003. The appellant pleaded not guilty to all four counts. He denied that he was involved and gave evidence that he was not present when the offences were committed. He was found guilty of each count. The appellant now appeals against those convictions.
Background
The offences were said to have occurred at about 8:30 am on 17 April 2003. The complainant, Mr Young, at that time was present at his place of employment, MJ Way Demolitions. The complainant’s evidence was that the appellant arrived with his son in a four-wheel drive vehicle. The Magistrate found that the complainant was alone at the time of the incident. Consequently, the only person called by the prosecution as an eyewitness to the events was the complainant.
The complainant gave evidence that the appellant took a “Kwik-Cut” cutting machine, which was the property of the complainant’s employer, and put it in the back of the vehicle. That complaint gave rise to the charge of larceny.
The complainant gave evidence that the appellant picked up a length of copper pipe and swung it about like a baseball bat close to the complainant’s head. The Magistrate found that this had occurred, prior to or at about the same time that the “Kwik-Cut” device was taken.
A piece of copper pipe was an exhibit…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Coghlan v Police

Details

AGLC: Coghlan v Police [2007] SASC 312
Case: [2007] SASC 312
Decision Date: 23 August 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in Coghlan v Police involved the appellant contesting his convictions for assault occasioning actual bodily harm, wilful damage to property, threatening to cause harm, and larceny. These charges stemmed from an incident on 17 April 2003, where the appellant was accused of attacking and threatening the complainant, Mr. Young, and stealing property belonging to the complainant’s employer. The complainant was the sole eyewitness to the incident, and the appellant denied all allegations, presenting an alibi defence supported by several witnesses.

The central legal issue in the appeal was whether the Magistrate had provided sufficient reasons for rejecting the defence evidence. The appellant argued that the Magistrate had failed to adequately explain why the defence witnesses' evidence was deemed 'unsafe, tainted, and unreliable'. The appeal focused on the extent of the obligation of a Magistrate to give reasons for rejecting evidence and whether the Magistrate's decision was affected by an error of law.

The court found that the Magistrate had not adequately explained the reasons for rejecting the defence evidence. The decision to reject evidence must be based on sufficient grounds, and the reasons for doing so must be clearly articulated. In this case, the Magistrate found that the defence witnesses had attempted to recollect the events accurately, but still concluded that their evidence was unreliable. However, the reasons for this conclusion were not sufficiently detailed or explained. The court held that the failure to provide adequate reasons for rejecting the defence evidence constituted an error of law, leading to the appeal being allowed. The convictions were quashed, and the matter was remitted for a rehearing.

The court's final order was to quash the convictions and remit the matter to the Magistrates Court for a rehearing, ensuring that the Magistrate provides adequate reasons for any decision to reject evidence in future proceedings.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

The appellant was charged with four offences: assault occasioning actual bodily harm, wilful damage to property, threatening to cause harm and larceny. The offences were all alleged to have arisen from the same incident on 17 April 2003. The appellant pleaded not guilty to all four counts. He denied that he was involved and gave evidence that he was not present when the offences were committed. He was found guilty of each count. The appellant now appeals against those convictions.Background The offences were said to have occurred at about 8:30 am on 17 April 2003. The complainant, Mr Young, at that time was present at his place of employment, MJ Way Demolitions. The complainant’s evidence was that the appellant arrived with his son in a four-wheel drive vehicle. The Magistrate found that the complainant was alone at the time of the incident. Consequently, the only person called by the prosecution as an eyewitness to the events was the complainant. The complainant gave evidence that the appellant took a “Kwik-Cut” cutting machine, which was the property of the complainant’s employer, and put it in the back of the vehicle. That complaint gave rise to the charge of larceny. The complainant gave evidence that the appellant picked up a length of copper pipe and swung it about like a baseball bat close to the complainant’s head. The Magistrate found that this had occurred, prior to or at about the same time that the “Kwik-Cut” device was taken. A piece of copper pipe was an exhibit before the Magistrate. Fingerprint impressions on the pipe were examined and it was observed that one of these was ‘consistent’ with the fingerprint of the appellant, meaning that there was insufficient detail for a positive identification but that the appellant could not be excluded. There was evidence that the pattern of fingerprints was consistent with the copper pipe being held in a baseball bat-style grip. The Magistrate considered that this evidence was helpful, and tended to confirm the complainant’s evidence about the manner in which the copper pipe had been used, but cautioned himself as to its use. As there was not a positive identification of the appellant’s fingerprints on the copper pipe, the evidence of the fingerprints had very little probative value. The Magistrate found that as the appellant was swinging the copper pipe, he stated: “I’ll fucking kill you with it too”. The Magistrate also found that as the appellant had returned to his vehicle, he had said to the complainant: “If you ring them fucking cops I’ll rape your missus and kill your kids”. He found that the words were intended to threaten the complainant and his family. The Magistrate did not identify which conduct constituted a threat to cause harm, but found that that charge had been proved. The complainant gave evidence, and the Magistrate found, that the appellant had used a sledgehammer taken from his vehicle and used it to damage a bobcat, which was the property of the complainant’s employer. That act gave rise to the charge of wilfully damaging property.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.