Jones v Police - [2009] SASC 242

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Full Court: Permission to Appeal in Private)
JONES v POLICE
[2009] SASC 242
Reasons for Decision of The Full Court
(The Honourable Chief Justice Doyle, The Honourable Justice Anderson and The Honourable Justice Kelly)
19 August 2009
APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL - PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - SOUTH AUSTRALIA - WHEN APPEAL LIES - BY LEAVE OF COURT - GENERALLY
Application for permission to appeal to the Full Court of the Supreme Court against the decision of a single Judge - Judge dismissed applicant's appeal against finding of guilt made by a Magistrate - whether permission should be granted.
Held: applicant seeks to reargue issues of fact that have been decided by a magistrate and a judge - permission to reargue facts of a case will only be granted where there is some compelling reason to do so in the interests of justice - no compelling reason - permission to appeal refused.
Supreme Court Civil Rules 2006 r 291, referred to.
Jones v Police [2009] SASC 170, discussed.

JONES v POLICE
[2009] SASC 242
Full Court: Doyle CJ, Anderson and Kelly JJ

THE COURT: Mr Jones was found guilty by a Magistrate of assaulting a police officer. He appealed against the decision to the Supreme Court. A Judge dismissed the appeal. Mr Jones now applies for permission to appeal to the Full Court.
The application has been considered by the Full Court comprising Doyle CJ, Anderson and Kelly JJ.
The Court has considered the reasons of the Judge, and a detailed summary of argument filed by Mr Jones’ solicitors. The Court has proceeded under r 291 of the Supreme Court Civil Rules 2006 and under Practice Direction 6.1.
According to the Judge, the prosecution case was that at about 2:30 am one morning at Port Augusta, a large group of people had assembled at the foreshore. They were told by police to move away. There was then a disturbance, in the course of which the prosecution alleged that Mr Jones assaulted Constable Gregory by kicking her and hitting her with his mobile phone: Jones v Police [2009] SASC 170 at [4].
Mr Jones gave evidence. His case was that he saw Constable Gregory attempting to hit an Aboriginal man with a torch. I gather that Mr Jones was taking pictures of events on the camera of his mobile phone. He claimed that Constable Gregory tried to hit him with a torch, and told him to put the camera away. He claimed that he merely pushed Constable Gregory with his left hand and ran away: [11].
The Magistrate found that Mr Jones did strike Constable Gregory on the left side of her head, and also that he kicked her: [13].
The written summary of argument in support of the application for permission to appeal discloses that Mr Jones wishes to reargue the facts of the case. The summary does so at a level of detail one would expect at trial, rather than on an…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Jones v Police and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2009] SASC 242
Decision Date: 19 August 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Jones applied to the Supreme Court of South Australia for permission to appeal against a decision of a single judge. The single judge had dismissed Jones' appeal against a finding of guilt made by a magistrate. The appeal was dismissed on the basis of the single judge’s conclusion that the appeal had no reasonable prospect of success. The appeal was brought under the provisions that allow an appeal to the Full Court of the Supreme Court by leave of the court.

The legal issue before the court was whether Jones should be granted leave to appeal against the decision of the single judge. The appeal was brought under a provision which allows an appeal by leave of the court, and the court was required to consider whether there was some compelling reason to grant leave in this case.

The court found that Jones was seeking to reargue issues of fact that had already been decided by a magistrate and a judge. The court held that permission to reargue facts of a case would only be granted where there was some compelling reason to do so in the interests of justice. The court found that there was no compelling reason in this case to grant leave. The appeal was dismissed.

The court refused Jones leave to appeal against the decision of the single judge.

Orders