QUESTION OF LAW RESERVED NO. 1 OF 2022

The Court of Appeal of South Australia considered questions of law reserved by the Director of Public Prosecutions following the trial of Hadyn John Sansbury. Mr. Sansbury was acquitted of murder and manslaughter but convicted of aggravated causing harm with intent. The reserved questions concerned the appropriateness of an extended unanimity direction given by the trial judge to the jury.

The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the trial judge erred in directing the jury that they must be unanimous not only on the ultimate verdict but also on the specific location where the fatal stab wound was inflicted and who inflicted it, before considering other elements of the offences of murder and manslaughter. The Director of Public Prosecutions contended that such a direction was unnecessary given the facts of the case.

The Court of Appeal reasoned that the potential defences were broadly common to both locations, and the events were separated by only a few metres and a short period of time, suggesting a single transaction. In such circumstances, an extended unanimity direction was not required. The Court answered the first two reserved questions in the negative, finding the extended unanimity direction to have been wrongly given. The third question was not answered.