Legal Research
Cases
R v Clothier

R v Clothier

Case [2002] SASC 9 18 January 2002

Type to search within this case.

R v CLOTHIER
[2001] SASC 9
Court of Criminal Appeal: Mullighan, Williams and Bleby JJ

MULLIGHAN J The appellant was found guilty of murder by verdict of the jury and appeals against that conviction.
The incident out of which the charge arose occurred about 4.00 am on 1^st April 2000 on the banks of the River Murray at Swan Reach when the appellant stabbed Shane Mervyn Mueller five times causing his death.
In view of the issues raised on this appeal, it is necessary to set out the background to, and circumstances of, the killing in some detail.
The previous night the appellant, who was aged 20 years at the time, and a man called Paul Williams went to the Swan Reach Hotel at about 10.30 to 11.00 pm and remained there drinking and playing pool until about 1.00 am.
Mr Mueller, who was aged 27 years, lived at Punyelroo near Swan Reach with his mother and sister. During that evening, he was at home with them. He was drinking beer and smoking marijuana. He went to the hotel at the same time as the appellant. He met the appellant and Mr Williams at the ferry. Before going to the hotel and after crossing the river on the ferry, the appellant drove his motor vehicle along a dirt track on the river bank underneath the hotel which is situated on a cliff near the road from the ferry. He and Mr Williams left the vehicle at the place where they later made a camp site and then went to the hotel on foot arriving at about the same time as Mr Mueller.
The three men were drinking beer together at the hotel and playing pool in a room near the front bar. Ms Poole was working in the bar until about midnight. There were other people in the hotel that night, including Daniel Hein. There had been an eight-ball competition. Mr Mueller introduced himself to Mr Hein. According to Ms Poole, none of the men was affected by alcohol. Damien Wilksch arrived at the hotel later in a four wheel drive Toyota utility. Mr Stapleton was also working at the hotel that night. He saw Mr Hein and Mr Mueller and two other men who were the appellant and probably Mr Williams from time to time until he closed the hotel at about 1.00 am.
Mr Stapleton did not regard any of the men at the hotel as being significantly affected by liquor, although he told the jury that all of them had consumed too much to drive a motor vehicle. After the hotel closed, Mr Mueller, Mr Hein, Mr Wilksch and others remained in the car park of the hotel for a time.
A number of men who were at the hotel gave evidence at the trial. All of them told the jury that there was no trouble at the hotel that night and the mood among the customers was normal. All of them said that the mood…

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 Clothier

Details

AGLC: R v Clothier [2002] SASC 9
Case: [2002] SASC 9
Decision Date: 18 January 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant was convicted of murder by a jury and appealed against that conviction. The Court of Criminal Appeal considered the appeal and rejected it. The incident occurred when the appellant, aged 20, stabbed Shane Mervyn Mueller five times causing his death. The appellant claimed that he acted in self-defence when stabbing Mr Mueller and that he did so without the necessary intention for murder. The court found that the trial judge did not err in his directions to the jury on self-defence and the law of intoxication. The court also found that there was no evidence of provocation fit to be left to the jury. The appeal was dismissed and the conviction upheld.

Orders