R v Bunting & Wagner (No 2) - [2005] SASC 185

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Court of Criminal Appeal)
R v BUNTING & WAGNER (No 2)
Judgment of The Court of Criminal Appeal
(The Honourable Chief Justice Doyle, The Honourable Justice Bleby and The Honourable Justice Gray)
24 May 2005
CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL
Applications for leave to appeal and appeal against convictions for multiple counts of murder - a single Judge of this Court refused leave to appeal - this Court refused leave on all grounds except those relating to the length and complexity of the trial for which it heard further argument as the appeal proper - application for leave to appeal granted - appeal dismissed.
R v Bunting & Wagner (No 1) [2005] SASC 45, discussed.

R v BUNTING & WAGNER (No 2)
[2005] SASC 185
Court of Criminal Appeal: Doyle CJ, Bleby and Gray JJ

DOYLE CJ: These reasons are to be read with my reasons in R v Bunting & Wagner (No 1) [2005] SASC 45.
In those reasons I explained why I would refuse leave to Mr Bunting and Mr Wagner to appeal against their convictions for murder, on each of the grounds on which they wished to appeal, with the exception of ground 7 of Mr Wagner’s grounds of appeal and grounds 1, 2 and 3 of Mr Bunting’s grounds of appeal. I said that those grounds should be further argued on the basis that the application for leave to appeal would be treated as the hearing of the appeal: at [176]. Bleby and Gray JJ agreed with my reasons.
We heard further submissions accordingly on 29 April 2005.
Mr Bunting was not represented. He applied for an adjournment, because he was still trying to obtain a grant of legal assistance. We refused the application. There was no indication of when a decision would be made, nor was there any indication that legal assistance was likely to be granted. Mr Bunting had been unrepresented before us on the previous occasion, and before the single Judge who refused leave to appeal. We took the view that there was a substantial public interest in bringing the matter to a conclusion that had to be taken into account. The trial concluded in September 2003. A single Judge refused leave to appeal in August 2004. Our earlier reasons were published in February 2005. The date for further submissions was fixed shortly after that. We were also influenced by the fact that Mr Cuthbertson QC, appearing for Mr Wagner, would be putting submissions that would support Mr Bunting’s proposed grounds of appeal. That, in brief, is why we refused to adjourn the hearing.
Mr Bunting then asked the Court to exclude from the court a person in the body of the court, apparently a police officer, to whose presence Mr Bunting objected. He said that he would not, and could not, put his submissions if that person was present. We declined to direct the…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Bunting & Wagner (No 2) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2005] SASC 185
Decision Date: 24 May 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Bunting & Wagner (No 2) involved the applicants, Bunting and Wagner, who sought leave to appeal against their convictions for multiple counts of murder. The application was initially dismissed by a single judge of the Court of Appeal, and subsequently, the Court of Appeal as a whole refused the application for leave to appeal on all grounds except for those relating to the length and complexity of the trial. The matter was then heard as the appeal proper. The applicants were represented by counsel who argued that the trial had been excessively lengthy and complex, resulting in prejudice to their right to a fair trial. The Court considered the arguments and determined that the length and complexity of the trial were indeed significant factors that warranted consideration.

The legal issues in this case primarily revolved around the applicants' contention that the trial was unduly prolonged and complicated, thereby infringing upon their right to a fair trial. The applicants argued that the trial's length and complexity led to confusion, potential prejudice, and a substantial risk of miscarriage of justice. The Court was tasked with evaluating the merits of these claims and determining whether the trial's length and complexity constituted grounds for allowing an appeal against conviction. The Court's analysis focused on the principles of fairness and the right to a trial within a reasonable time, as enshrined in the common law and statutory provisions such as the Criminal Procedure Act.

In its decision, the Court acknowledged the significance of the trial's length and complexity but concluded that, despite these factors, the applicants' right to a fair trial was not compromised to the extent that it warranted allowing the appeal. The Court found that the trial judges had exercised their discretion appropriately in managing the proceedings and that the applicants had not demonstrated a miscarriage of justice. The Court held that while the trial was lengthy and complex, it did not reach the threshold where an appeal against conviction should be allowed solely on these grounds. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was granted in part, but the appeal itself was dismissed.

The final orders of the Court were that the application for leave to appeal was granted in part, specifically on the grounds relating to the length and complexity of the trial. However, the appeal against the convictions was dismissed on all grounds, affirming the applicants' convictions for multiple counts of murder. The Court emphasized that the trial's length and complexity, while significant, did not constitute sufficient grounds for overturning the convictions.

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

After hearing the further submissions, I am on the view that those observations are applicable to the submissions advanced in support of the remaining grounds.Conclusion Having heard full argument on this ground, it is appropriate to grant leave to appeal to Mr Wagner on ground 7 of his grounds of appeal, and to Mr Bunting on grounds 1, 2 and 3 of his grounds of appeal. However, having done so I would dismiss the appeal on each of those grounds. BLEBY J: I agree that both appeals should be dismissed. I agree with the reasons of the Chief Justice and have nothing to add. GRAY J: I agree with the orders proposed. I agree with the reasons of Doyle CJ.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.