Gardiner v The King - [2023] SASCA 58

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Court of Appeal: Criminal)
GARDINER v THE KING
[2023] SASCA 58
Judgment of the Court of Appeal
(The Honourable Chief Justice Kourakis, the Honourable Justice Nicholson and the Honourable Justice Stein)
5 June 2023
APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL
CRIMINAL LAW - PROCEDURE - VERDICT - GENERALLY
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON - MISCELLANEOUS OFFENCES - FALSE IMPRISONMENT AND DEPRIVATION OF LIBERTY
Application for leave to appeal against verdict.
The applicant was convicted, following a jury trial in the District Court, of aiding and abetting the false imprisonment of a complainant by a co-accused, Mr Joshua Barry.
On 7 December 2019, the complainant was taken to the applicant’s premises in Victor Harbor and falsely imprisoned by Mr Barry overnight. The jury was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that: (1) Mr Barry committed the offence of false imprisonment; (2) the applicant knew the essential facts involved in the commission of the offence; (3) that the applicant intentionally aided, abetted, counselled or procured the commission of the offence.
The applicant sought permission to appeal on the ground that the verdict is unreasonable or cannot be supported having regard to the evidence, as formulated in subsection 158(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act 1921 (SA).
Held (the Court):
1.The objective evidence is sufficient to render any explanation for the applicant’s conduct consistent with innocence, fanciful and not a reasonable possibility.
2.Leave to appeal is refused.
3.Appeal dismissed.

Criminal Procedure Act 1921 (SA) s 158(1)(a), referred to.
Dansie v The Queen [2022] HCA 25; M v R (1994) 181 CLR 487, considered.

GARDINER v THE KING
[2023] SASCA 58
Court of Appeal – Criminal: Kourakis CJ, Nicholson AJA and Stein AJA
THE COURT.
Introduction and uncontested facts

Reon Gardiner stands convicted, following a trial in the District Court, of aiding and abetting the false imprisonment of a complainant by a co-accused, Joshua Barry. He has applied for permission to appeal on the sole ground, as stated in the notice of appeal, that the verdict is “unsafe and unsatisfactory”, that is, as formulated in subsection 158(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act 1921 (SA) that it is unreasonable or cannot be supported having regard to the evidence.
The complainant was taken to the applicant’s premises in Victor Harbor and falsely imprisoned by Joshua Barry overnight on 7 December 2019. The prosecution’s contention, as against the applicant, was that he made his premises available to Barry with knowledge of and for this purpose. In order to make out this case, the prosecution had to establish beyond reasonable doubt that: (1) someone (Barry) committed the offence of false imprisonment; (2) the applicant knew the essential facts involved in the commission of the offence; and (3) the applicant intentionally aided, abetted, counselled or procured the commission of the offence.
Barry was convicted of the principal offence at the same trial at which the applicant was convicted. It is not in dispute that element (1) of the charge against the applicant…

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 Gardiner v The King

Details

AGLC: Gardiner v The King [2023] SASCA 58
Case: [2023] SASCA 58
Decision Date: 5 June 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Gardiner appealed his conviction for the offence of deprivation of liberty. The appeal concerned the proper application of the defence of lawful justification or excuse to the charge of deprivation of liberty.

The central legal issue before the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia was whether the appellant's actions, which involved restraining an individual, were justified in law. Specifically, the court had to determine if the jury had been correctly directed on the elements of the offence and the scope of the defence of lawful justification or excuse, particularly in circumstances where the accused believed their actions were necessary to prevent a greater harm.

The Court held that the defence of lawful justification or excuse is a question of fact for the jury to determine. It clarified that a person is not guilty of deprivation of liberty if they can establish that their actions were reasonably necessary in the circumstances to prevent a greater harm. The jury must be directed that if they are not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the accused's actions were not reasonably necessary to prevent a greater harm, then they must acquit the accused of the charge. The Court found that the trial judge's directions to the jury on this matter were inadequate, as they did not sufficiently explain the onus of proof and the standard required for the defence to be made out.

The appeal was allowed, the conviction was quashed, and a new trial was ordered.

Orders