R v Assheton No. DCCRM-00-211 - [2001] SADC 189

R v Randel Scott Assheton
[2001] SADC 189
Judge Sulan
Criminal

Randel Scott Assheton is charged with five counts of receiving.
The charges all relate to property which was found in a shed at 14 Katrina Avenue, Windsor Gardens. In the early hours of the morning of the 11^th October, police entered the shed and inside the shed they found various items, including parts of motor vehicles, three vehicles and various other items, including documents.
Much of the prosecution case is not in dispute. It is not disputed that many of the items found in the shed came from three Daewoo motor vehicles which had been stolen from Marion Daewoo between the 1^st and 3^rd October 1999. The shells of two of those vehicles were found not far from the shed, in a nearby suburb.
Also found in the shed was a Toyota Land cruiser which belonged to Frances Richards. That vehicle had been stolen from premises at which they had been stored, some time in the first half of the calendar year 1999. Also in the shed was a blue Ford utility which had been stolen between the 9^th and 10^th October 1999, from North Adelaide. In the back of that vehicle were some documents belonging to a Mr Crawford. They had been stolen in the vicinity of Saint Mark’s College, also on the night of the 9^th and 10^th October 1999. Another Land cruiser which had been stolen on about the 9^th August 1999, was also located in the shed.
There were a number of young men in the shed when the police entered, including a man named Troy Morel Mather. It is not disputed that Mather had leased the shed from his girlfriend’s father and that Mather had unlimited and unconditional access to the shed. He had rented the shed at the beginning of October 1999.
The accused, Assheton, was asleep in a car inside the shed. That car was a Commodore which was registered in his name. In the boot of the car there was a CB radio and a car stereo. Those items had been removed from the blue utility which is the subject of count three. Also in the shed was a Ford Falcon station wagon. Evidence led on behalf of the prosecution supports the prosecution’s contention that that Ford Falcon was disposed of by the registered owner, Glenn Healey, to the accused, Assheton on the 9^th October 1999. Attached to the front of that vehicle was a bullbar which came from the stolen utility, the subject of count three. In the back of the stolen utility were a number of items, including a bumper bar which came from the Ford Falcon station wagon. Also in the rear of the stolen utility were a number of items which came from some of the vehicles which had been stolen from Marion Daewoo and which are the subject of count one. The prosecution case, as…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Assheton No. DCCRM-00-211 and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2001] SADC 189
Decision Date: 13 December 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Randel Scott Assheton stands accused of receiving stolen property, with the charges stemming from items discovered in a shed located at 14 Katrina Avenue, Windsor Gardens. The items included parts of motor vehicles, three vehicles, and various other belongings, such as documents. The prosecution's case is largely undisputed, establishing that the items in question were stolen from multiple sources, including three Daewoo motor vehicles stolen from Marion Daewoo, a Toyota Land Cruiser stolen from Frances Richards, a blue Ford utility stolen from North Adelaide, and a Land Cruiser stolen on August 9, 1999. Assheton was found asleep in his car within the shed, which was leased by Troy Morel Mather. The prosecution argues that the evidence points to Assheton being more than a visitor to the shed and suggests that he was involved in the criminal activity of stripping motor vehicles and dealing in the parts.

The legal issues before the court were whether there was sufficient evidence to convict Assheton of receiving stolen property and whether the defence's submission of no case to answer should be accepted. The court had to determine if a reasonable jury, properly directed, could convict Assheton based on the evidence presented, and whether Assheton could be found in joint possession of the stolen property with Mather. The court also had to consider the relationship between larceny and receiving, as the evidence could be equally consistent with Assheton either being the thief or the receiver.

The court found that the evidence was sufficient for a jury to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that Assheton was part of a joint enterprise with Mather to receive stolen goods. The court rejected the defence's submission of no case to answer, holding that it was ultimately a question for the jury to decide whether there was a competing hypothesis reasonably open on the evidence that Assheton might have been the thief. The court determined that there was sufficient evidence for the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Assheton was in possession of the stolen items in question. Therefore, the submission of no case to answer was rejected.

The final orders of the court were to proceed with the trial, as there was sufficient evidence to support a conviction if the jury found Assheton guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

Orders