R v Bond - [2009] SASC 256

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Court of Criminal Appeal)
R v BOND
[2009] SASC 256
Judgment of The Court of Criminal Appeal
(The Honourable Chief Justice Doyle, The Honourable Justice David and The Honourable Justice Kelly)
27 August 2009
CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL - MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION
Appeal against conviction - appellant convicted of murder by jury - whether the trial judge erred in failing to direct the jury that for there to be a conscious and voluntary act on the part of the appellant, the prosecution had to prove that, at the time of the striking the deceased, the accused knew that he had a sharp penetrating object in his hand.
Held: appeal dismissed - direction to this effect not required - the accused knew that he had some type of weapon in his hand.

CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL - MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION
Appeal against conviction - appellant convicted of murder by jury - whether the trial judge erred in failing to direct the jury that the appellant’s conduct in striking the deceased was the striking of the deceased with an unknown object, unless the jury was satisfied that the appellant knew that he had scissors in his hand.
Held: appeal dismissed - the trial judge made it clear with both oral directions and written material that when considering self-defence there was a distinction to be drawn between the appellant’s evidence as to what he thought happened, and the facts as proved.

CRIMINAL LAW - JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - SUMMING UP
CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - PARTICULAR GROUNDS - MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION - GENERAL MATTERS - CONSIDERATION OF SUMMING UP AS A WHOLE
Appeal against conviction - appellant convicted of murder by jury - whether trial judge's summing up failed to put the defence case in that it failed to relate the evidence appropriately to the defence of self-defence and self-defence in a place of residence.
Held: appeal dismissed - the trial judge properly directed the jury through oral directions and written material and clearly put the defence case in relation to self-defence.
Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) s 15, referred to.
R v Williamson (1996) 67 SASR 428, distinguished.

R v BOND
[2009] SASC 256
Court of Criminal Appeal: Doyle CJ, David and Kelly JJ

DOYLE CJ: I would dismiss the appeal against conviction. I agree with the reasons of David J for so ordering.
DAVID J: The appellant was charged with murder, contrary to s 11 of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA), and was convicted after a trial before a jury. He now appeals against that conviction.
It was undisputed at trial that the appellant stabbed the deceased (“V”) with scissors, thereby causing his death. At the time of the stabbing, the appellant was living in a caravan park. The incident took place…

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 Bond

Details

AGLC: R v Bond [2009] SASC 256
Case: [2009] SASC 256
Decision Date: 27 August 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Bond, the appellant was convicted of murder by a jury and appealed the conviction. The central issues for the court to consider were whether the trial judge erred in failing to direct the jury on specific aspects of the case. Firstly, the court needed to determine if the trial judge was incorrect in not instructing the jury that the prosecution had to prove the appellant knew he had a sharp penetrating object in his hand at the time of the incident. Secondly, the court examined whether the trial judge failed to adequately distinguish in his directions that the appellant's conduct involved an unknown object unless the jury believed the appellant knew he had scissors in his hand.

The court concluded that the trial judge did not err in his directions to the jury. The judge made it clear through both oral and written directions that there was a distinction to be made between the appellant's perception of events and the facts as proven. The judge's instructions were sufficient to ensure the jury understood the difference between the appellant's account and the evidence presented. Additionally, the court found that the trial judge adequately covered the necessary directions regarding the weapon used, ensuring the jury understood that the appellant must have known he had a weapon, although the exact type was not specified at the time of the incident.

Ultimately, the court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the trial judge had properly directed the jury and accurately conveyed the defence's case regarding self-defence. The court held that the summing up as a whole was appropriate and correctly reflected the evidence and legal principles relevant to the case.

Orders