L v Police No. Scgrg-00-968 - [2000] SASC 426

L v POLICE
[2000] SASC 426

Magistrates Appeal (Criminal)

1................ OLSSON J....... ............. This is an appeal against a conviction recorded by a magistrate, sitting as the Youth Court, against the appellant on a charge of intentional damage to property, contrary to s 85 (3) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA).

In his notice of appeal the appellant asserts that the conviction was unsafe and unsatisfactory. He complains that the learned magistrate fell into error in accepting the identification evidence of the witness Grabowski. It is pleaded that, in accepting the evidence of identification given by Grabowski, the learned magistrate failed to properly assess the accuracy of the identification evidence, upon a consideration of all the evidence.
It is to be noted that the appellant originally pleaded guilty to the charge in question, but was permitted to withdraw that plea. The matter then went to trial on oral evidence before the learned magistrate. Having reserved his decision, the learned magistrate later published full written reasons for the conclusions to which he came. As he correctly identified, the prosecution case largely rested on identification evidence given by Grabowski. He expressed himself as being satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the accuracy of that evidence; and that it was the appellant who had caused the damage which was the subject of the relevant charge.
The evidence revealed that, about 5.45 p.m. on 11 November 1998, a young man named Daniel Woodley was driving a motor vehicle which he co‑owned with his father. That motor vehicle was in good repair, without any external panel or body damage. He had just previously pulled into the Shell Service Station at Fairview Park to re-fuel the vehicle. His evidence was to the effect that, having completed the refuelling, he drove the vehicle towards the exit to Hancock Road. As he did so, he became aware of some person calling out. He saw that person running towards his vehicle from the rear, on the passenger side.
Woodley told the learned magistrate that he saw Grabowski, who was sitting in the near side front passenger seat, wind down his window to speak with the approaching person. As that person got to the vehicle, it appeared that he was exhibiting an aggressive manner, whereupon Grabowski was seen by Woodley to attempt to wind up the window. Woodley said that the person attempted to grab Grabowski, who managed to wind the window up. Woodley did not clearly see the person concerned but said that, when the window was wound up that person commenced kicking and punching the vehicle, on the two near side passenger doors. He also punched it on the roof. Woodley managed to drive away. It was later ascertained that the striking of the vehicle had occasioned damage to the bodywork which would cost in excess of $1000 to repair.
I pause to note that Mr Lang, of counsel for the appellant, sought to contend that there was an inconsistency between the evidence of Grabowski and Woodley…

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 L v Police No. Scgrg-00-968

Details

AGLC: L v Police No. Scgrg-00-968 [2000] SASC 426
Case: [2000] SASC 426
Decision Date: 30 November 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Magistrates Appeal (Criminal) case of L v Police No. Scgrg-00-968, the appellant, L, challenged his conviction for intentional damage to property, arguing that the conviction was unsafe and unsatisfactory. The appellant contested the magistrate's acceptance of identification evidence from Grabowski, asserting that the magistrate failed to properly assess the accuracy of this evidence. The court had to determine whether the magistrate's reliance on Grabowski's identification was justified and whether the conviction was based on reliable evidence.

The appeal hinged on the evaluation of Grabowski's identification of the appellant as the person responsible for the damage to the vehicle. The evidence indicated that Grabowski had known the appellant since primary school, had visited his home, and had seen him at various locations over the years. Grabowski testified that he instantly recognised the appellant during the incident and immediately reported this to the police. The magistrate found Grabowski's evidence credible and reliable, noting the detailed and consistent nature of his identification. In contrast, the appellant's father provided a belated alibi, which the magistrate found less convincing. The magistrate carefully considered the evidence and concluded that Grabowski's identification was accurate, leading to the conviction.

The court found that the magistrate's decision was well-reasoned and supported by the evidence. The appellant's argument that the father's credibility should have cast doubt on Grabowski's identification was rejected as illogical. The magistrate's assessment of the evidence, including the opportunity for recognition, the conditions during the incident, and the consistency of Grabowski's testimony, was thorough and aligned with legal principles regarding identification evidence. The court held that there was no basis for questioning the magistrate's conclusion and dismissed the appeal.

Orders