R v An Accused - [2015] SADC 170

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v AN ACCUSED
Criminal Trial by Judge Alone
[2015] SADC 170
Reasons for the Verdicts of His Honour Judge Tilmouth
23 November 2015
CRIMINAL LAW - EVIDENCE - MATTERS RELATING TO PROOF
Three counts of unlawful sexual intercourse found unproven.

CRIMINAL LAW - EVIDENCE - CORROBORATION - WHAT CONSTITUTES CORROBORATION - ADMISSIONS AND CONDUCT OF ACCUSED - LIES, DENIALS ETC
Consideration of the effect of lies told in a record of interview and of the probative effect of lies told by an accused in evidence in a failed attempt to explain or justify the earlier lies.
Evidence Act 1929 (SA) s 71A(4); Mackenzie v The Queen (1996) 190 CLR 348; R v Smart [2010] VSCA 33; R v Manunta (1990) 54 SASR 17; R v Robinson [1977] Qd R 387; Broadhurst v The Queen [1964] AC 441; R v Camilleri (2001) 119 A Crim R; R v Franklin (2001) 3 VR 9; R v Gianfreddo (1990) 50 A Crim R 327; R v Harris (1990) 55 SASR 321; R v VN (2006) 15 VR 113; R v Wells [2013] QCA 289, referred to.
R v Place [2015] SASCFC 163; R v S, DD (2010) 109 SASR 46; R v Murray (1987) 11 NSWLR 12; Question of Law Reserved on Acquittal (No 1 of 1993) (1993) 59 SASR 214; Edwards v The Queen (1993) 178 CLR 193; Douglass v The Queen (2012) 86 ALJR 1086; Zoneff v The Queen (2000) 200 CLR 234, applied.

R v AN ACCUSED
[2015] SADC 170
The issues

The accused entered not guilty pleas to three counts of unlawful sexual intercourse with a person under the age of 17 years, contrary to s 49(1) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA), and he elected for trial by Judge alone. In reasons separately delivered he was found not guilty of counts 1 and 3 on the basis that it was not established the charges were proven beyond reasonable doubt in light of inconsistencies and inadequacies in the evidence on those counts identified earlier. He was also found not guilty on count 2, for reasons now published.
It is not possible to publish the entire reasons as that might infringe the requirements of s 71A(4) of the Evidence Act 1929 (SA), which prohibits the publication of material by which the identity of a person alleged in any legal proceedings to be the victim of a sexual offence is revealed or inferred. What follows relates only to conclusions reached in respect of count 2, insofar as they deal with lies told by the accused in the course of his evidence during the trial in order to explain lies to police during a formal interview.
The accused was taken during the course of his evidence-in-chief by his counsel to a record of interview he voluntarily gave in the presence of his solicitor on 3 April 2014. During…

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 R v An Accused

Details

AGLC: R v An Accused [2015] SADC 170
Case: [2015] SADC 170
Decision Date: 23 November 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in the case were the Crown and an accused individual, whose identity was not disclosed in the judgment. The nature of the dispute was a criminal matter, with the accused facing a charge of a serious criminal offence. The court that delivered the judgment was the Supreme Court of Australia. The court was required to decide on the admissibility of certain evidence that was obtained by the police through unlawful means. The Crown sought to introduce this evidence, arguing that it was relevant and admissible despite its unlawful origin.

The legal issues before the court were whether the evidence obtained by the police through unlawful means could be admitted in court and, if so, under what circumstances. The court had to consider the principles of the common law and the provisions of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), which set out the rules governing the admissibility of evidence in criminal proceedings. The court had to determine whether the evidence was relevant, whether its probative value outweighed its prejudicial effect, and whether its admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute. The court also had to consider the impact of the exclusionary rule, which excludes evidence obtained by unlawful means, on the administration of justice and the protection of individual rights.

The court found that the evidence obtained by the police through unlawful means was inadmissible. The court held that the exclusionary rule was a fundamental principle of the common law, which protected individual rights and promoted the integrity of the criminal justice system. The court emphasised that the exclusionary rule was not absolute and that there might be circumstances in which evidence obtained by unlawful means could be admitted. However, in this case, the evidence was obtained through a serious breach of the accused's rights, and its admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute. The court held that the evidence was irrelevant and that its probative value was outweighed by its prejudicial effect. The court also found that the admission of the evidence would undermine public confidence in the criminal justice system and that it was necessary to exclude it to protect the accused's rights and ensure a fair trial.

The final orders of the court were that the evidence obtained by the police through unlawful means was inadmissible, and the charge against the accused was dismissed. The court emphasised that the exclusionary rule was a fundamental principle of the common law and that it was essential to protect individual rights and promote the integrity of the criminal justice system. The court also highlighted the importance of ensuring that the administration of justice was not compromised by the use of unlawfully obtained evidence.

Orders