Corfield v Police

Case [2017] SASC 170

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA

(Magistrates Appeals: Criminal)

CORFIELD v POLICE

[2017] SASC 170

Judgment of The Honourable Justice Stanley

23 November 2017

CRIMINAL LAW - PROCEDURE - POWERS AND DUTIES OF PROSECUTION AS TO CALLING OF WITNESS AND PRESENTING EVIDENCE - GENERALLY

CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL - CONDUCT OF PROSECUTOR OR PROSECUTION

Appeal against conviction and sentence for one count of aggravated assault causing harm contrary to s 20(4) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) following trial by a magistrate.

Three men were crossing a Hotel carpark when the appellant, who was standing next to a motor vehicle talking to a female, became enraged by a pejorative remark concerning the motor vehicle, made by one of the three men.  A verbal altercation ensued before the appellant obtained a metal pole from the motor vehicle and ran back towards two of the men.  He first encountered the complainant who was standing apart from the other two.  The complainant was holding a beer bottle.  The appellant allegedly swung the pole, striking the complainant in the face.  The appellant’s case was that he swung the pole in self-defence as one of the men verbally threatened him and positioned the beer bottle in a threatening manner.

At issue on appeal is, inter alia, whether the prosecution failed to call a material witness, being the female with whom the appellant had been talking next to the motor vehicle.

Held: Appeal against conviction allowed.  The verdict of guilty and the sentence of imprisonment is set aside.  The appellant is to be retried.

1.  Intoxication could not be a legitimate basis for excluding the witness’s evidence given that the prosecution was content to rely on the evidence of another witness who was admittedly intoxicated at the time.  The prosecutor erred in not speaking with the witness and as a result, there were not established identifiable circumstances of the witness’s unreliability or truthfulness (at [37]).

2.  It is no answer that it was open to the defence to call the witness (at [38]).

Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) s 20(4); Magistrates Court Act 1991 (SA) s 42, referred to.
Richardson v The Queen (1974) 131 CLR 116; The Queen v Apostilides (1984) 154 CLR 563; R v Kneebone (1999) 47 NSWLR 450; R v O’Brien (1996) 66 SASR 396, applied.
R v Manning [2017] QCA 23; R v Shaw (1991) 57 A Crim R 425, considered.

CORFIELD v POLICE
[2017] SASC 170

Magistrates Appeal:  Criminal

STANLEY J.

Introduction

  1. This is an appeal against conviction and sentence. 

  2. The appellant was tried before a magistrate on a charge of aggravated assault causing harm, contrary to s 20(4) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) (CLCA). The circumstances of the aggravation was alleged to be the use of an offensive weapon.

  3. The prosecution case was that three men, the complainant Trevor Edwards, his son Sam Edwards and Sam’s friend Andrew Neil, were crossing…

Continue reading Corfield v Police

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Corfield v Police [2017] SASC 170
Case
[2017] SASC 170
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court was an appeal against a conviction by Corfield, who had been found guilty of indecent assault. The case involved a dispute regarding the conduct of the prosecution and whether it had deprived Corfield of a fair trial. Corfield argued that the prosecution had failed to call a witness, Ms Mansell, whose testimony could have supported his defence and undermined the complainant’s evidence. This failure allegedly constituted a miscarriage of justice.

The central legal issues were whether the prosecution’s failure to call Ms Mansell constituted a breach of the principles of natural justice and whether such a breach had resulted in a miscarriage of justice that warranted a retrial. The court had to consider the extent to which the uncalled witness's testimony could have influenced the outcome of the trial and whether this failure amounted to a substantial injustice that could not be remedied by any other means.

The court found that Ms Mansell's evidence had the potential to significantly impact the trial’s outcome by casting doubt on the complainant's testimony. Given the possibility that this evidence could have led to a different verdict, the court concluded that the prosecution's failure to call Ms Mansell was a breach of natural justice. This breach was substantial enough to warrant a retrial to ensure Corfield received a fair trial. The court held that the failure to call Ms Mansell deprived Corfield of a fair trial and that this miscarriage of justice could not be rectified by any other means.

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, the verdict of guilty was set aside, and the sentence of imprisonment was quashed. The court ordered that Corfield be retried before another magistrate, ensuring that all legal principles were adhered to in the new trial.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

STANLEY J
In this case the evidence of Ms Mansell may have supported the evidence of Mr Schueller and cast some doubt on the evidence of the complainant, his son and Mr Neil. In those circumstances it cannot be said that the verdict of guilty was inevitable. Conclusion Accordingly, the appeal must be allowed and the verdict of guilty set aside. The appellant must be retried before another magistrate. It follows that it is unnecessary to consider the other grounds of appeal against conviction or the appeal against sentence. I would allow the appeal. I would set aside the verdict of guilty and the sentence of imprisonment. I would order that the appellant be retried before another magistrate.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: STANLEY J

Full text does not contain this section.