R v Bridgland - [2014] SASCFC 80

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Court of Criminal Appeal)
R v BRIDGLAND
[2014] SASCFC 80
Judgment of The Court of Criminal Appeal
(The Honourable Justice Gray, The Honourable Justice Sulan and The Honourable Justice Bampton)
22 July 2014
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON - HOMICIDE - MANSLAUGHTER
CRIMINAL LAW - GENERAL MATTERS - CRIMINAL LIABILITY AND CAPACITY - DEFENCE MATTERS - DEFENCE OF PERSONS OR PROPERTY - GENERALLY
CRIMINAL LAW - GENERAL MATTERS - CRIMINAL LIABILITY AND CAPACITY - DEFENCE MATTERS - DEFENCE OF PERSONS OR PROPERTY - REASONABLE BELIEF IN NECESSITY OF RESPONSE
CRIMINAL LAW - GENERAL MATTERS - CRIMINAL LIABILITY AND CAPACITY - DEFENCE MATTERS - DEFENCE OF PERSONS OR PROPERTY - ACCUSED ORIGINAL AGGRESSOR
CRIMINAL LAW - GENERAL MATTERS - CRIMINAL LIABILITY AND CAPACITY - DEFENCE MATTERS - DEFENCE OF PERSONS OR PROPERTY - DEFENCE OF ANOTHER
Appeal against conviction for manslaughter. The defendant’s associates were engaged in a fight in a hotel car park with the deceased. The defendant approached the scene and was punched at by the deceased. The defendant then punched the deceased in the head, killing him.
Whether the Judge erred in finding that the defendant was not in danger before entering the fight. Whether the Judge erred in finding that self defence was negated by the defendant leaving his position of safety, thereby becoming a willing combatant. Whether the Judge adequately addressed the deceased’s aggression towards the defendant. Whether the Judge erred in finding that the defendant was not acting in defence of another.
Held per the Court granting permission but dismissing the appeal:
1. The Judge’s factual findings were fully supported by the evidence.
2. The Judge did not err in his consideration of the issue of self defence.
3. The Judge did not err in his consideration of the issue of defence of another.
4. There was no risk of there having been a miscarriage of justice.
Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) s 13, s 15 and s 15A, referred to.
R v Fricker (1986) 42 SASR 436; R v Nguyen (1995) 36 NSWLR 347; Morgan v Colman (1981) 27 SASR 334; Zecevic v Director of Public Prosecutions (Victoria) (1987) 162 CLR 645; Palmer v R [1971] AC 814, considered.

R v BRIDGLAND
[2014] SASCFC 80
Court of Criminal Appeal: Gray, Sulan and Bampton JJ
THE COURT

This is an appeal against conviction.
Background
The defendant and appellant, Jason Graham Bridgland, was jointly charged with Alex George Winter and a youth, ATS, with the offence of manslaughter relating to the death of Henk Van Oosterom in the car park of the Old Bushman Hotel in Gawler in the early hours of 1 September 2012.[1] The deceased was a stranger to the defendant and his co-accused. The prosecution case was that the defendant was the principal offender. It was said that he punched the deceased to the left side of the head, causing his death. The co-accused were allegedly parties…

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 Bridgland

Details

AGLC: R v Bridgland [2014] SASCFC 80
Case: [2014] SASCFC 80
Decision Date: 22 July 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Jason Graham Bridgland, appealed against his conviction for manslaughter following the death of Henk Van Oosterom. The prosecution's case was that the appellant was the principal offender, having punched the deceased in the head, causing his death. The appellant and his co-accused were alleged to have been involved in a joint criminal enterprise to assault the deceased, exposing him to a risk of serious injury. The trial judge found that the blow delivered by the appellant was the substantial cause of death and convicted him of manslaughter, while his co-accused were acquitted.

The central legal issue before the appellate court was whether the trial judge erred in his consideration of the defence of self-defence, or alternatively, the defence of another. While the defence of another was faintly argued, the primary focus of the appeal was on the assessment of self-defence.

The appellate court, comprising Gray, Sulan, and Bampton JJ, granted permission to appeal but ultimately dismissed the appeal. The court found that the trial judge did not err in his findings of fact or in his consideration of the issue of self-defence or the defence of another. Consequently, the court concluded that the appellant had not established any risk of a miscarriage of justice.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

This is an appeal against conviction.Background The defendant and appellant, Jason Graham Bridgland, was jointly charged with Alex George Winter and a youth, ATS, with the offence of manslaughter relating to the death of Henk Van Oosterom in the car park of the Old Bushman Hotel in Gawler in the early hours of 1 September 2012.[1] The deceased was a stranger to the defendant and his co-accused. The prosecution case was that the defendant was the principal offender. It was said that he punched the deceased to the left side of the head, causing his death. The co-accused were allegedly parties to a joint criminal enterprise with the defendant to assault the deceased in such a way as to expose the deceased to an appreciable risk of serious injury. [1] Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) section 13. All elected for trial by judge alone. The defendant was convicted of the offence of manslaughter. Verdicts of not guilty were recorded in respect of the co-accused. At trial, the prosecution was put to proof of each of the elements of the offence of manslaughter. The Judge found beyond reasonable doubt that the blow delivered by the defendant to the head of the deceased was the substantial cause of his death. On the topic of the assessment of witnesses, the Judge recorded the following:I accept the expertise of Dr Charlwood and her evidence in full. I accept the police officers Brevet Sergeant Peter McKenzie, Senior Constable Christopher Twiggs and Constable John Oberholzer as honest and reliable witnesses and I accept their evidence. I also accept the evidence of Detective Brevet Sergeant Robert Brooker given in the trial proper. I further accept the evidence of the persons employed at, or by, the Hotel.As for the various patrons of the Hotel, I accept that all were endeavouring to give truthful evidence. However, these witnesses had been drinking varying amounts of alcohol and I bear in mind that there is a need for me to assess the reliability of particular witnesses on particular topics against that background.I say no more on the topic because there was very little cross-examination indicating any serious quarrel being taken with the oral evidence of any witness. There was no clash between witnesses for the defence and those called by the prosecution because none of the accused gave or called any oral evidence. Clearly, the real area of debate was as to what inferences could be drawn from the evidence and, of course, as to the viewing and interpretation of the various recorded visual material.The evidence primarily relevant to the issues before this Court were the observations of the patrons of the hotel and the viewing and interpretation of what the Judge described as “the various recorded visual material”, which we will refer to as “video footage” in these reasons. The defendant did not give evidence or call any other evidence in support of his case. The Judge summarised the video footage, noting the locations of the various cameras and that each camera was imbedded with a uniform continuous time clock. The Judge noted that this embedded time was not synchronised with true South Australian time. He described the functioning of digitally recorded material. He concluded that he could not be confident that by examining the images frame by frame a precise account of the movement of persons could be obtained. The Judge, however, found that, in the circumstances, this was not a material consideration.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Counsel for the defendant only faintly argued contentions concerning the defence of another. As he frankly conceded, the primary question at trial and before this Court was self defence.Conclusion We consider that permission to appeal should be granted. However, we do not consider that the Judge erred either in regard to his findings of fact or with respect to his consideration of the issue of self defence or defence of another. We do not consider that the defendant has established that there was any risk of there having been a miscarriage of justice. We would grant permission to appeal but for the reasons given we would dismiss the appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.