R v FORREST - [2004] SASC 333

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Court of Criminal Appeal)
R v FORREST
Judgment of The Court of Criminal Appeal
(The Honourable Chief Justice Doyle, The Honourable Justice Bleby and The Honourable Justice Gray)
26 October 2004
APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - NEW TRIAL - IN GENERAL AND PARTICULAR GROUNDS - PARTICULAR GROUNDS - MISDIRECTION OR NON-DIRECTION
Appeal against conviction - appellant convicted of one count of robbery in company - whether trial Judge erred in directing the jury on proof of facts beyond reasonable doubt - whether reference to 'a reasonable person acting reasonably' constituted a misdirection - whether erred in failing to direct the jury on the necessary consequences if they did not know where the truth lay - no misdirection or non-direction - appeal dismissed.
Brown v The King (1930) 17 CLR 570; Thomas v The Queen (1960) 102 CLR 584; Dawson v The Queen (1961) 106 CLR 1; Green v The Queen (1971) 126 CLR 28; R v Wilson (1986) 42 SASR 203; The Queen v Pahuja (1987) 49 SASR 191, applied.
R v ALJ (2000) 117 A Crim R 370; R v Ngo and Le (2002) 135 A Crim R 550, discussed.
Chidiac v The Queen (1991) 171 CLR 432; Carr v The Queen (1988) 165 CLR 314; M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; R v Calides (1983) 34 SASR 355, considered.

R v FORREST
[2004] SASC 333
Court of Criminal Appeal: Doyle CJ, Bleby and Gray JJ

DOYLE CJ: I would dismiss the appeal. I agree with the reasons given by Bleby J for so deciding. There is nothing that I wish to add.
BLEBY J: The appellant was jointly charged with Adam Paul Knibbs with two counts of robbery in company. Count 1 alleged that they robbed the victim Hannagan of $10.00. Count 2 alleged that they robbed the victim Brady of a mobile telephone, cigarettes and the sum of $2.00. Although they were jointly charged, the trial took place against the appellant only. The co-accused, Knibbs, took no part in the proceedings.
The jury was unable to reach a verdict on Count 1 relating to Hannagan and, by majority, returned a verdict of guilty on Count 2 in relation to Brady.
For the purposes of this appeal, the facts can be stated rather shortly. Hannagan and Brady were sitting on a bench near, but not at, a bus stop at Woodville at about 10.15pm on 20 January 2003. They claimed that they were waiting to catch a bus. They were approached by the appellant and Knibbs and were accused of interfering with a nearby car. The car was one in which the appellant and Knibbs had been travelling.
At the trial there was no dispute that the appellant struck Hannagan in the face. Hannagan alleged that the appellant also demanded money and that the appellant had searched his wallet. The appellant denied that he had stolen anything from Hannagan. He admitted…

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 FORREST

Details

AGLC: R v FORREST [2004] SASC 333
Case: [2004] SASC 333
Decision Date: 26 October 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Forrest, was convicted of one count of robbery in company and appealed against his conviction. The primary issue before the court was whether the trial judge erred in the direction given to the jury concerning the proof of facts beyond reasonable doubt. Specifically, the court examined whether the reference to "a reasonable person acting reasonably" constituted a misdirection. Additionally, the court considered whether the judge erred in failing to direct the jury on the necessary consequences if they did not know where the truth lay.

The court found that the trial judge's direction to the jury did not constitute a misdirection or non-direction. It was held that the phrase "a reasonable person acting reasonably" was an appropriate and accurate reflection of the standard required to prove facts beyond reasonable doubt. The court also determined that there was no error in the judge's failure to direct the jury on the necessary consequences of their uncertainty, as it was not a misdirection or non-direction that would have affected the outcome of the trial. The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction upheld.

No additional orders were made by the court as the appeal did not succeed in establishing grounds for a new trial or appeal. The conviction for the count of robbery in company remained in place, and the appellant's conviction was confirmed.

Orders