Date of Hearing: 15 June 2022 Date of Judgment: 10 August 2022
A4/2022
ORDER
1.Appeal allowed.
2. Set aside the order made by the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia on 2 November 2020.
3. Remit the matter to the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of South Australia for rehearing.
On appeal from the Supreme Court of South Australia
Representation
T A Game SC with K G Handshin QC and K J Edwards for the appellant (instructed by Nathan White Lawyers)
M G Hinton QC with D Petraccaro SC for the respondent (instructed by Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (SA))
Notice: This copy of the Court's Reasons for Judgment is subject to formal revision prior to publication in the Commonwealth Law Reports.
CATCHWORDS
Dansie v The Queen
Criminal practice – Appeal – Where appellant tried and convicted of murder of wife by judge alone in Supreme Court of South Australia – Where appellant appealed conviction on ground that verdict unreasonable or could not be supported having regard to whole of evidence – Whether Full Court of Supreme Court of South Australia sitting as Court of Criminal Appeal misapplied test in M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487 – Function of court of criminal appeal determining appeal against conviction on unreasonableness ground following trial by judge alone.
Words and phrases – "advantage in seeing and hearing the evidence", "circumstantial case", "function of a court of criminal appeal", "independent assessment of the evidence", "inference of guilt", "jury questions", "pathway to proof of guilt", "unreasonable verdict", "unreasonableness ground".
GAGELER, KEANE, GORDON, STEWARD AND GLEESON JJ. The appellant was tried in the Supreme Court of South Australia for the murder of his wife. At his election, the trial proceeded without a jury. The trial judge, Lovell J, found him guilty of murder[1]. As a consequence, he was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment with a non-parole period of 25 years.
The appellant appealed against his conviction to the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia, sitting as the Court of Criminal Appeal. The grounds of appeal included that the verdict could not be supported having regard to the evidence. The Court of Criminal Appeal, by majority, rejected that ground and dismissed the appeal[2]. The majority was comprised of Parker and Livesey JJ. Nicholson J dissented.
By special leave, the appellant now appeals to this Court from the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal. The sole ground of the appeal to this Court is that the majority in the Court of Criminal Appeal erred in how it approached the ground that the verdict was unreasonable or could not be supported having regard to…
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 Dansie v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Dansie v The Queen [2022] HCA 25
Case
[2022] HCA 25
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appellant, Dansie, was convicted of murder by a judge alone in the Supreme Court of South Australia. He appealed his conviction to the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia, sitting as the Court of Criminal Appeal, on the ground that the verdict was unreasonable or could not be supported having regard to the whole of the evidence. The appeal to the High Court concerned whether the Full Court had misapplied the test established in *M v The Queen* (1994) 181 CLR 487 when determining an appeal against a conviction for murder, following a trial by judge alone, on the ground of unreasonableness.
The High Court was required to determine the proper function of a court of criminal appeal when assessing an appeal against a conviction based on the unreasonableness ground, particularly in the context of a trial conducted by a judge alone. This involved considering how the appellate court should approach its independent assessment of the evidence, especially in a circumstantial case, and the extent to which it should defer to the findings of the trial judge who had the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses. The central question was whether the Full Court had correctly applied the principles for determining whether a verdict was unreasonable or could not be supported by the evidence.
The High Court held that the Full Court had misapplied the test in *M v The Queen*. It explained that when a court of criminal appeal considers an appeal on the ground of unreasonableness, it must undertake an independent assessment of the evidence. This assessment requires the appellate court to determine for itself whether the evidence, viewed at its highest, is capable of establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The appellate court is not bound by the findings of the trial judge, even if the trial was conducted by a judge alone. The High Court concluded that the Full Court had failed to conduct this independent assessment and had instead given undue weight to the findings of the trial judge.
Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia, and remitted the matter to the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of South Australia for rehearing.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Appeal allowed.
2. Set aside the order made by the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia on 2 November 2020.
3. Remit the matter to the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of South Australia for rehearing.
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
GAGELER, KEANE, GORDON, STEWARD AND GLEESON JJ
(dissent)