R v Barrowman

Case [2007] SASC 28

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA

(Court of Criminal Appeal)

R v BARROWMAN

[2007] SASC 28

Judgment of The Court of Criminal Appeal

(The Honourable Justice Sulan, The Honourable Justice Vanstone and The Honourable Justice Layton)

6 February 2007

CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - PARTICULAR GROUNDS - UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE VERDICT

Appellant convicted after trial by judge alone of four counts of unlawful sexual intercourse and two counts of indecent assault - whether adequate reasons given for verdicts - whether verdicts unsafe and unsatisfactory - reasons not inadequate - no reason to doubt correctness of verdicts - appeal dismissed.

R v Keyte (2000) 78 SASR 68; R v Power (2003) 141 A Crim R 203; T v Medical Board (SA) (1992) 58 SASR 382; Fleming v The Queen (1998) 197 CLR 250, applied.
Soulemezis v Dudley (Holdings) Pty Ltd (1987) 10 NSWLR 247; DW v The Queen [2004] ACTCA 22; (2004) 150 A Crim R 130; Papps v Police (SA) (2000) 77 SASR 210; R v Beard [2004] SASC 411, considered.

R v BARROWMAN
[2007] SASC 28

Court of Criminal Appeal:  Sulan, Vanstone and Layton JJ

SULAN J:

  1. I would dismiss the appeal.  I agree with the reasons of Vanstone J.

    VANSTONE J: 

    Introduction

  2. The appellant was convicted by a District Court judge sitting alone of four counts of unlawful sexual intercourse and two counts of indecent assault.  The offences occurred over a few months in 2004.  In each case the victim was a boy of 15 years, whom I shall call “Daniel”. 

  3. The appeal is by leave insofar as it concerns a ground asserting that the verdicts were unsafe and unsatisfactory and could not be supported having regard to the whole of the evidence.  However upon the appeal hearing, counsel for the appellant sought to argue a second ground, being a complaint that the trial judge “failed to give adequate reasons for the verdicts” and that he erred in his consideration of a number of factual contests.  It is to that second ground that almost all of the argument on the appeal was directed.  The respondent did not claim any embarrassment in meeting the new ground of appeal.  In any event the factual issues raised by both grounds were much the same.

    The principles

  4. In R v Keyte (2000) 78 SASR 68 Doyle CJ, with whom Wicks J agreed, gave guidance as to the extent of the reasons required where a judge sat alone in a criminal matter. Doyle CJ observed at [54] that what was needed would vary from case to case. He said: “Different considerations might apply to matters of law and of fact, to a verdict of guilty and a verdict of not guilty.” Further, he said that it should not be assumed that the reasons for decision would replicate a summing up. His Honour observed that where the decision rested substantially upon the impression made by the…

Continue reading R v Barrowman

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Barrowman [2007] SASC 28
Case
[2007] SASC 28
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Barrowman, the appellant faced trial by a judge alone, resulting in convictions for four counts of unlawful sexual intercourse and two counts of indecent assault. The appeal centred on whether the reasons provided for the verdicts were adequate and whether the verdicts were unreasonable or insupportable. The case was heard in the court of appeal, where the appellant challenged both the adequacy of the reasons and the safety of the verdicts.

The legal issues that the court had to decide included whether the reasons provided by the trial judge were adequate and whether the verdicts reached were unsafe or unsatisfactory. The appellant argued that the judge had failed to adequately deal with certain factual arguments and that the verdicts were not supported by the evidence. The court needed to assess the reasons provided by the trial judge and determine if there were sufficient grounds to doubt the correctness of the verdicts.

The court examined the reasons given by the trial judge and concluded that they were adequate. The judge had considered the evidence presented, including the testimony of the complainant and the appellant, and reached a conclusion based on the evidence. The court found that there was no reason to doubt the correctness of the verdicts, as the evidence was compelling. The appeal was dismissed as there were no grounds to support the contention that the verdicts were either unsafe or unsatisfactory.

Consequently, the court upheld the verdicts and dismissed the appeal, affirming the correctness of the trial judge's assessment of the evidence and the reasons provided.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

The complaint that the verdicts are unsafe and unsatisfactory rests on the same factual arguments with which, it is put, the judge failed to adequately deal. I have considered those arguments afresh in the context of all the evidence. In particular I have made my own assessment of the evidence of the complainant and the appellant. My reading of Daniel’s evidence suggests that it was compelling. No doubt Daniel is an unusual young person with a life experience far more extensive than that of most persons of his age. However, notwithstanding counsel’s arguments, I consider that there is no reason to doubt the correctness of the verdicts.Conclusion It seems clear that a contention that a judge has failed to give adequate reasons is a matter of law: T v Medical Board (SA) (1992) 58 SASR 382; Fleming v The Queen (1998) 197 CLR 250; Papps v Police (2000) 77 SASR 210; R v Keyte (2000) 78 SASR 68. Therefore leave to appeal on this ground is not required. However, for the reasons I have given this ground fails. Further, I am not persuaded that the verdicts are either unsafe or unsatisfactory. The appeal must be dismissed.LAYTON J: I would dismiss the appeal. I agree with the reasons given by Vanstone J.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.