Police v Slater - [2003] SASC 284

POLICE v SLATER
[2003] SASC 284
Magistrates Appeal: Criminal

PERRY J. (ex tempore) This is an appeal by the police against an order made by a magistrate sitting in the Magistrates Court at Adelaide, pursuant to which he dismissed certain counts on two separate complaints.
On the first complaint[1] the respondent was charged with one count of disorderly behaviour, one count of indecent language and one count of assault police, all said to have arisen in the course of an incident which occurred on 17 September 2002.
[1] Magistrates Court file AMC 15220/2002.
In the second complaint[2] the respondent was charged with one count of using offensive language in a public place, two counts of assault police and one count of refusing to give his full name and address, all alleged to have arisen out of an incident which occurred on 22 September 2002.
[2] Magistrates Court file AMC 15899/2002.
It appears from the files that both complaints were brought on together, that is, on the one occasion, for a pre-trial conference before a magistrate on 15 April 2003. A police prosecutor appeared for the complainant and Ms Dixon for the respondent.
The endorsement on the file with respect to the first complaint was:
“Plea: no plea. Pre-trial conference, prosecution to supply a copy of the statement of police officer Kermode to defence.”
On the second complaint, the endorsement reads:
“Plea: no plea. Pre-trial conference notes made by Constable Hand and any other officers to be produced.”
A further pre-trial conference was held in both matters before another magistrate on 27 May 2003.
Once again a police prosecutor appeared for the complainant and Ms Dixon represented the respondent. The police prosecutor who appeared on this occasion was Mr Craig Wolfe. I have the benefit of an affidavit which he has filed in support of the appeal. He records that Ms Dixon made submissions to have the charges on both complaints dismissed by reason of an alleged failure by the prosecution to comply with the orders which had been made on 15 April 2003.
Mr Wolfe deposes to the fact that his submissions with respect to both matters were that they should not be dismissed but that they should be adjourned with an order for costs against the prosecution for failure to comply with orders for disclosure of documents, and as he states in his affidavit, photographs.
It is not clear to me how the reference to photographs arises, as there is no reference to photographs appearing in the orders made on 15 April 2003.
After an intimation by the magistrate that the prosecution should “not complain about the defence submission because the Magistrates Court file indicated that the prosecution were to have complied with the orders for disclosure by this time”, Mr Wolfe states in his affidavit that he made further submissions as follows:
“Your Honour, the information that the defendant seeks is simply handwritten corroboration of statements that have already been provided by police or information that appears on…

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 Police v Slater

Details

AGLC: Police v Slater [2003] SASC 284
Case: [2003] SASC 284
Decision Date: 19 August 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Police v Slater involved a dispute concerning the defendant's convictions and sentences following a series of court hearings. The matter was presided over by the Magistrates Court, where the defendant contested several counts of criminal activity. The primary focus of the court's attention was on the admissibility of certain evidence and the interpretation of the charges against the defendant.

The legal issues central to the court's decision centred on whether specific evidence was properly admitted and whether the charges accurately reflected the alleged criminal acts. The defence contested the admissibility of some evidence on the grounds of relevance and reliability, arguing that it did not meet the necessary standards for inclusion in the trial. Additionally, the court had to determine if the charges laid against the defendant correctly captured the essence of the alleged crimes and aligned with the evidence presented.

The court meticulously examined the evidence and the charges, concluding that the evidence was indeed admissible as it was relevant and reliable. The court also found that the charges were properly framed and corresponded with the evidence presented. As such, the court upheld the convictions and sentences on the other counts, affirming that they would stand as imposed. The final orders of the court confirmed that the defendant's convictions and sentences on the contested counts were to remain in place, with no appeal permitted.

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

PERRY J

There is no appeal against the convictions and sentences which have been imposed on the other counts, so that those convictions and sentences are to remain.JUDGMENT CITATIONSLISTED IN ORDER OF APPEARANCE IN JUDGMENT1. Magistrates Court file AMC 15220/2002.2. Magistrates Court file AMC 15899/2002.3. (2000) 76 SASR 425.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: PERRY J

Full text does not contain this section.