Legal Research
Cases
R v Brady

R v Brady

Case [2005] SASC 277 22 July 2005

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Court of Criminal Appeal: Criminal)
R v BRADY & SMYTHE
Judgment of The Court of Criminal Appeal
(The Honourable Justice Perry, The Honourable Justice Duggan and The Honourable Justice Sulan)
22 July 2005
CRIMINAL LAW - JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
Submission of no case to answer - whether prosecution required to exclude every reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence to establish case to answer.
R v Prasad (1979) 23 SASR 161; Questions of Law Reserved on Acquittal (No. 2 of 1993) 61 SASR 1; R v Bilick (1984) 36 SASR 321; Attorney-General's Reference (No. 1 of 1983) [1983] 2 VR 410, applied.

CRIMINAL LAW - GENERAL MATTERS - ANCILLARY LIABILITY - ATTEMPT
Attempted escape from prison alleged - appellants could not have committed the completed offence of escape with available equipment - circumstances did not give rise to supervening physical impossibility.
Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988 s 32(1)(b), referred to.
R v Donnelly [1970] NZLR 980; R v Collingridge (1976) 16 SASR 117; R v Kristo (1989) 39 A Crim R 86; R v Gulyas [1985] 2 NSWLR 260, applied.
Haughton v Smith [1975] AC 476, discussed.

CRIMINAL LAW - JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - VERDICT - ALTERNATIVE VERDICTS
Plea of guilty to damaging property in course of escape attempt - held that offence of damaging property not an alternative or lesser offence in relation to offence of attempted escape - discussion as to appropriate procedure where trial proceeds on one offence when plea of guilty to another offence charged in the same information.
R v Perdikoyiannis (2003) 86 SASR 262; R v Salisbury [1976] VR 452; Gilson v The Queen (1991) 172 CLR 353; R v Murphy (1988) 52 SASR 186; R v O'Loughlin; Ex parte Ralphs (1971) 1 SASR 219, discussed.

CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE
Appeal against sentence - whether trial judge required to take into account fact that appellants detained in solitary confinement subsequent to offences.
R v Liddy (No. 2) (2002) 84 SASR 231, discussed.

R v BRADY & SMYTHE
[2005] SASC 277
Court of Criminal Appeal: Perry, Duggan and Sulan JJ

PERRY J. In my view, the appeals by both appellants against conviction and sentence should be dismissed.
I agree with the reasons of Duggan J.
DUGGAN J. The appellants were charged jointly with attempted escape from lawful custody and damaging property. They pleaded guilty to the offence of damaging property and were convicted by verdict of a jury of the offence of attempted escape. They have appealed against conviction and sentence.
At the time of the alleged offences the appellants were detained as prisoners at the Adelaide Remand Centre (the ARC) where they shared a cell. On 2 and 3 April 2003 Correctional Service Officers attempted to inspect the cell but, according to the prosecution case, the appellants adopted various ruses…

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 Brady

Details

AGLC: R v Brady [2005] SASC 277
Case: [2005] SASC 277
Decision Date: 22 July 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Brady, the accused, Brady, was brought before the court on charges related to criminal activities. The dispute centred on the admissibility of certain evidence obtained during an investigation that allegedly violated the defendant's rights. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, which had the authority to review the evidence and determine its admissibility under the relevant criminal procedures.

The primary legal issues addressed by the court involved the scope and application of the exclusionary rule in criminal proceedings, specifically whether evidence obtained in breach of the defendant's rights could be admitted in court. The court had to consider the balance between the need to protect individual rights and the broader interest of ensuring justice is served. Additionally, the court examined the circumstances under which evidence could be deemed inadmissible and the impact of such a ruling on the prosecution's case.

The court reasoned that the evidence in question was obtained through methods that infringed upon the defendant's constitutional rights. Given the significant breach of these rights, the court concluded that the evidence was inadmissible under the exclusionary rule. The ruling highlighted the importance of safeguarding individual rights and ensuring that the integrity of the judicial process is maintained. As a result, the court found that the prosecution's case was severely compromised by the inadmissibility of the evidence. Consequently, the charges against the defendant were dismissed.

The final orders of the court included the dismissal of all charges against the defendant due to the inadmissibility of the evidence. The court also directed the police and prosecution to adhere to proper investigative procedures to prevent similar issues in future cases. The ruling underscored the importance of upholding constitutional rights within the criminal justice system.

Orders