R v Blundell - [2020] SADC 85

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v BLUNDELL
Criminal Trial by Judge Alone
[2020] SADC 85
Judgment of Her Honour Judge Deuter
3 July 2020
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON - ASSAULT - CIRCUMSTANCES OF AGGRAVATION AND AGGRAVATED ASSAULTS
The accused is charged with one court of Aggravated Causing Harm with Intent to Cause Harm - trial by judge alone - identity of the offender was the primary issue - displacement effect - evidence not sufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was the offender.
Verdict: Not Guilty
Evidence Act 1929 (SA) s 34AB(4); Criminal Law Consolidation Act (SA)1935 s 24(1), referred to.
R v Blundell [2019] SASCFC 84; R v Gardi [2015] SASCFC 186; Domican v R (1992) 173 CLR 555; Alexander v The Queen (1981) 145 CLR 395, applied.

R v BLUNDELL
[2020] SADC 85
Introduction

Keiron James Blundell, the accused, is charged on an Information dated 20 January 2017 with the following offence:
Statement of Offence
Aggravated Causing Harm with Intent to Cause Harm (Section 24(1) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act (SA) 1935)
Particulars of Offence
Keiron James Blundell on the 20^th day of March 2016 at Semaphore Park, caused harm to Jason Ward, intending to cause him harm.
It is further alleged that Keiron James Blundell used an offensive weapon, namely a metal garden frame, to commit the offence.
The Prosecution of the Charge
The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge.
The prosecution of the charge has a lengthy history with a trial before a jury (‘first trial’) where a verdict could not be reached, and a second trial before a jury (‘second trial’) which resulted in a guilty verdict. The verdict following the second trial was overturned by the Court of Criminal Appeal on 8 July 2019.[1] The accused has now elected to be tried by judge alone.
[1] R v Blundell [2019] SASCFC 84.
The previous trials and the evidence given in them are irrelevant to the trial before me and will not be considered, except where the evidence of a witness at one of the earlier trials was tendered by the consent of the accused.
Elements of the Offence
The elements of the offence of aggravated causing harm with intent to cause harm are:
1That the accused caused harm to the victim, Mr Ward;
2That the harm caused to Mr Ward was serious harm;
3That the accused acted deliberately to cause harm to Mr Ward;
4That the accused acted unlawfully in assaulting Mr Ward;
5That at the time of the assault the accused intended to cause serious harm;
6The offence is aggravated if it is proved that the accused assaulted Mr Ward with a weapon. That being an article that the accused had for the purpose of causing personal injury or incapacity, or in circumstances in which another is likely to feel reasonable apprehension that he has it for the reason of causing personal injury or incapacity.

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 Blundell

Details

AGLC: R v Blundell [2020] SADC 85
Case: [2020] SADC 85
Decision Date: 3 July 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Blundell, the defendant was charged with one count of aggravated causing harm with intent to cause harm. The case was heard by a judge alone, and the primary issue for determination was the identity of the offender. The case hinged on whether the evidence was sufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was the person who committed the offence. A significant consideration in the trial was the displacement effect, which refers to the possibility that the true offender might have been someone other than the accused.

The court had to examine the evidence presented and determine whether it was sufficient to establish the accused's identity as the perpetrator. This involved a rigorous analysis of the prosecution's case and the potential for alternative explanations for the crime. The court had to be satisfied that the evidence pointed unequivocally to the accused as the offender, excluding any reasonable doubt.

After careful consideration of the evidence, the court concluded that the prosecution had not proven the accused's identity as the offender beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence was deemed insufficient due to the displacement effect, leaving open the possibility that someone else could have committed the crime. As a result, the court found the accused not guilty of the charge of aggravated causing harm with intent to cause harm. The court's decision underscores the importance of a strong and conclusive proof of identity in criminal cases, particularly when dealing with aggravated offences.

Orders