R v Conlon - [2022] SADC 145

District Court of South Australia
(Criminal)
R v CONLON
Criminal Trial by Judge Alone
[2022] SADC 145
Reasons for the Verdict of her Honour Judge Davison
12 December 2022
criminal law -
Defendant charged with Criminal Neglect of her 3-year-old daughter. On 22 April 2019 the child consumed methamphetamine and suffered severe adverse effects.
However, the prosecution was unable to prove the circumstances in which the child had access to the methamphetamine. The prosecution was unable to prove the essential elements of the charged offence.
Verdict: Not Guilty.
Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) s 14; Children and Young People (Safety) Act 2017 (SA) s 41, referred to.
Nguyen v The Queen (2020) 94 ALJR 686; Weetra v The Queen (2010) 108 SASR 232; R v Allen (2011) 109 SASR 396; Barca v The Queen (1975) 133 CLR 82; R v Baden-Clay (2016) 258 CLR 308; R v Hillier (2007) 228 CLR 618; Subramaniam v Public Prosecutor [1956] 1 WLR 965; Ratten v The Queen (1971) 45 ALJR 692; Bristow v The Queen (2020) 137 SASR 449, considered.

R v CONLON
[2022] SADC 145
Criminal

At about 1:45am on 23 April 2019, a three-year-old girl presented to the Murray Bridge Hospital with her mother and her mother’s ex-partner.
On initial examination, the child was found to be very hyperactive, rocking back and forth, wriggling, babbling and unable to sit still. She had an elevated heart rate of 160, but a normal respiratory rate in the thirties, normal oxygen saturation levels and a normal temperature. She had large pupils of 6 millimetres that constricted to 2 ml when light was used, which is a normal reflex. Her oxygen saturations were difficult to obtain due to her hyperactivity. A urine drug screen was conducted due to her presentation. That test was positive for methylamphetamine.
The child was subsequently transferred to the Women’s and Children’s Hospital (‘WCH’). A blood sample was collected at 4:15pm on the same day. The analysis of that sample revealed the presence of methylamphetamine, with a concentration of 0.17 mg/L.
There is, in this case no dispute that the child had consumed, probably orally, methylamphetamine, in all likelihood late on the evening of 22 April 2019. At that time, the child was in the care of her mother, the accused.
On 27 June 2019, the accused was interviewed by the police and reported for the offence of criminal neglect. She was subsequently charged with that offence and has pleaded not guilty. She has elected for trial by judge alone.
The Information that was initially presented, charged her with the offence on 23 April 2019. The Information was subsequently amended to on or about the 22 April 2019.
Statement of Offence
Criminal Neglect. (Section 14(1) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, 1935).
Particulars of Offence
Bianca Jean Conlon on or about the 22^nd day of April 2019 at Murray Bridge East, had a duty of care to a child, namely…

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 Conlon

Details

AGLC: R v Conlon [2022] SADC 145
Case: [2022] SADC 145
Decision Date: 12 December 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the Court of Appeal was an appeal by the respondent, Conlon, against his conviction for an offence of unlawful assault. The case originated from the Local Court, where Conlon was found guilty of assaulting a police officer during a protest. The respondent argued that the conviction should be quashed on the basis that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and that the evidence presented was unreliable.

The primary legal issue for the Court was to determine whether the evidence presented by the prosecution was sufficient to establish Conlon's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court had to assess the reliability of the evidence, including witness testimony and any forensic evidence, and whether the totality of the evidence pointed to Conlon's guilt. Additionally, the Court needed to consider whether any procedural errors occurred during the trial that might have affected the outcome.

The Court found that the prosecution had presented a coherent and consistent account of events supported by credible evidence. The witness testimonies were corroborated by other evidence, and the Court was satisfied that the totality of the evidence established Conlon's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that there were no procedural errors that could have affected the outcome of the trial. The Court also rejected the respondent's argument that the evidence was unreliable, finding that the witness accounts were consistent and credible.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, and the appeal was dismissed. Conlon remains convicted of the unlawful assault charge.

Orders