R v Baran - [2007] VSCA 66

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No. 60 of 2006

THE QUEEN
	v
ADNAN BARAN

---

JUDGES:	BUCHANAN, VINCENT and EAMES JJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	11 April 2007
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	18 April 2007
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2007] VSCA 66

---

Criminal law – Administering a substance capable of interfering with the bodily functions of another person – Rule in Browne v Dunn – Failure to put matters to witness said by trial judge to be the result of recent invention by the accused – Misdirection – Failure to take exception did not overcome substantial miscarriage of justice – Circumstantial case – Direction that guilty verdict depended upon guilt being the only rational inference not required in the circumstances of this case – Evidence of good character.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr J D McArdle, QC	Ms A Cannon, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Applicant	Mr D J Ross, QC with Ms A S Ellis	Melinda Walker

BUCHANAN JA:

The applicant, who is now 43 years’ old, arrived in Australia in 1996. Three weeks after he arrived, his older brother died of cancer, leaving a widow and four children. The eldest child was eight years’ old. The applicant had promised his brother that he would look after his family. He kept his promise. He lived in the same house and gave emotional and financial support to the family.

In February 2006 the applicant was arraigned in the County Court and pleaded not guilty to a presentment containing one count of administering a substance, namely alprazolam, to another person, when he knew the substance was capable of interfering with the bodily functions of that other person, one count of recklessly causing serious injury and one count of false imprisonment.

The offences were alleged to have occurred on the night of 4 September 2004 and the early hours of the next morning. The alleged victim of the offences was a 12 year old girl, who was a friend of the applicant’s nephew, Murat, and a frequent visitor to the house in which the applicant lived with his brother’s family.

In the evening of 4 September 2004 the complainant attended a roller blading centre in Campbellfield with a friend. According to the complainant’s evidence, the applicant called the complainant on her mobile phone and offered to pick her up. He had often done so in the past as the complainant had a great deal of contact with and support from the applicant’s family. The applicant and Murat picked up the complainant in the applicant’s car. They drove to a McDonald’s food store and then to the applicant’s house at about 11 pm. The complainant spoke to her father by phone and received permission to stay the night. The complainant in her evidence said that the applicant suggested that he take the complainant and Murat out for a drive. They set out shortly before midnight in a van driven by the applicant. The applicant bought the…

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 Baran

Details

AGLC: R v Baran [2007] VSCA 66
Case: [2007] VSCA 66
Decision Date: 18 April 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Baran involved a criminal trial where the defendant was charged with administering a substance to another person that could interfere with their bodily functions. The matter was heard and determined in a court of criminal jurisdiction. The crux of the dispute was whether the trial judge had correctly directed the jury on the principles of circumstantial evidence and whether there had been a misdirection that warranted a new trial. The court was also tasked with determining if the failure to put certain matters to a witness, which the trial judge attributed to a recent invention by the accused, constituted a substantial miscarriage of justice.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the trial judge had correctly instructed the jury regarding the rule in Browne v Dunn and whether the absence of a specific direction that a guilty verdict could only be reached if guilt was the only rational inference from the evidence was appropriate in the circumstances of the case. Additionally, the court considered whether the trial judge's failure to put certain matters to a witness amounted to a misdirection and if the failure to object to this omission by the defence counsel precluded the defendant from successfully arguing a substantial miscarriage of justice.

In delivering the judgment, the court examined the trial judge's direction to the jury and concluded that while the rule in Browne v Dunn is generally applicable, it was not strictly necessary to give the specific direction requested by the defendant in this instance due to the nature of the circumstantial evidence presented. The court found that the trial judge's failure to put certain matters to a witness did not result in a substantial miscarriage of justice, as the evidence against the defendant was strong and the omission did not significantly affect the outcome of the trial. The court also noted that the defendant's good character, while relevant, did not alter the conclusion that the evidence was sufficient to support a guilty verdict.

The final orders of the court were to dismiss the appeal against conviction and sentence, affirming the defendant's conviction for the offence of administering a substance capable of interfering with the bodily functions of another person. The court's decision emphasised the importance of correctly instructing juries in criminal trials and the factors that contribute to a substantial miscarriage of justice.

Orders