R v Anderson (No 2) - [2014] SASC 97

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v ANDERSON (No 2)
[2014] SASC 97
Reasons for Rulings of The Honourable Justice Sulan
5 August 2014
CRIMINAL LAW - EVIDENCE - MATTERS RELATING TO PROOF - PRIMA FACIE CASE OR CASE TO ANSWER
CRIMINAL LAW - GENERAL MATTERS - ANCILLARY LIABILITY - ATTEMPT - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - ATTEMPTED MURDER
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON - ACTS INTENDED TO CAUSE OR CAUSING DANGER TO LIFE OR BODILY HARM OR SERIOUS INJURY - ACTS INTENDED TO CAUSE DANGER TO LIFE
Submissions by defence that there was no case to answer and that a Prasad direction ought to be given. Whether insufficient evidence on prosecution case to establish the accused intended to kill the alleged victim. Whether state of the evidence unsatisfactory to convict the accused.
Held: The evidence, if accepted, was sufficient to produce in the mind of a reasonable person satisfaction beyond reasonable doubt of each element of the offence. There was a case to answer. Application refused.
There was nothing patently unsatisfactory or lacking in cogency about the evidence adduced in the prosecution case. The accuracy and reliability of the evidence were matters properly left for the consideration of the jury. Application refused.
Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) s 11, s 29(1), s 270A, referred to.
Zanetti v Hill (1962) 108 CLR 433; R v Bilick (1984) 36 SASR 321; R v Pahuja (1987) 49 SASR 191; Dean v The Queen (1995) 65 SASR 234; R v Prasad (1979) 23 SASR 161, considered.

R v ANDERSON (No 2)
[2014] SASC 97

SULAN J: On 21 July 2014, following the conclusion of the prosecution case, I ruled that there was a case to answer in the trial of Michael Craig Anderson for attempted murder or, alternatively, aggravated endangering life. I further declined to invite the jury to consider acquitting the accused without hearing further evidence or the addresses. I indicated that I would provide reasons for ruling at a later date. These are those reasons.
The accused was charged on an Information with the following offences:
First Count
Statement of Offence
Attempted Murder. (Section 11 and 270A of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, 1935).
Particulars of Offence
Michael Craig Anderson on the 12th day of July, between Kimba and Iron Knob, attempted to Murder Zephatali Walsh.
Second Count
Statement of Offence
Aggravated Endangering Life. (Section 29(1) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, 1935).
Particulars of Offence
Michael Craig Anderson on the 12th day of July, between Kimba and Iron Knob, without lawful excuse, did an act, namely discharge a firearm, knowing that act was likely to endanger the life of another, intending to endanger the life of another, or being recklessly indifferent as to whether another’s life was endangered.
It is further alleged that Michael Craig Anderson used an offensive weapon, namely a firearm when committing the offence.
The prosecution case is that on 12 July 2012, the alleged victim, Zephatali…

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 Anderson (No 2)

Details

AGLC: R v Anderson (No 2) [2014] SASC 97
Case: [2014] SASC 97
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Anderson, the Supreme Court of South Australia considered the sufficiency of the evidence against the accused, Michael Craig Anderson, who was charged with attempted murder and aggravated endangering life. The prosecution case alleged that the accused had engaged in a dangerous high-speed chase on a highway, during which he fired several shots from a handgun towards the victim's vehicle. The court was tasked with determining whether the evidence presented was sufficient to establish the accused's intent to kill and whether a 'Prasad direction' should be given to the jury, allowing them to consider acquitting the accused without further evidence.

The court examined the nature and reliability of the evidence, including the victim's testimony, police recordings of the victim's phone calls during the incident, and physical evidence such as a bullet found in the victim's car. The court concluded that, while the evidence had some inconsistencies, it was not patently unsatisfactory or lacking in cogency. The determination of the evidence's credibility and the accused's intent was properly left to the jury to decide. Therefore, the court ruled that there was a case to answer and denied the application for a 'Prasad direction'. The accused's plea of guilty to the charge of aggravated endangering life was withdrawn, and the case proceeded to the jury to determine the accused's intent and guilt regarding the charges of attempted murder and aggravated endangering life.

Orders