R v Freer - [2021] SADC 81

District Court of South Australia
(Criminal: Application)
R v FREER
[2021] SADC 81
Reasons for Rulings of her Honour Judge Chapman (ex tempore)
6 July 2021
CRIMINAL LAW - EVIDENCE - MATTERS RELATING TO PROOF - PRIMA FACIE CASE OR CASE TO ANSWER - GENERALLY
The accused is on trial for dishonesty offences. The prosecution closed its case, the defence elected not to call evidence and closing addresses were delivered to the jury. The defence then submitted there was no case on counts 2 and 3.
Held: A trial judge has power to find no case after closing addresses have been completed. There is no case on counts 2 and 3. The jury will be directed to acquit the accused on those counts. The jury will be discharged on count 1.
R v N Ltd and C Ltd (2008) EWCA Crim 1223; R v TS [2017] NSWCCA 247; R v Julie Johnson [1999] EWCA Crim 41; Boakye Court of Appeal Criminal Division, 12 March 1992; Director of Public Prosecutions Reference No 1 of 2017 (2017) 267 CLR 350; R v Gapper and Mazzeo [2007] SASC 119; R v Bilick (1984) 36 SASR 321, discussed.

R v FREER
[2021] SADC 81

Criminal

At the completion of closing addresses, the defence submitted there is no case to answer in relation to counts 2 and 3 on the Information.
The accused is on trial for dishonesty offences. The trial commenced on 29 June 2021.
Count 1 is an offence of aggravated theft.[1] It relates to an allegation that on 7 August 2014, the accused deposited two cheques into his own business account and thereby stole money from his cousin, Nadiene Wright. He was a solicitor representing Ms Wright in her Family Court settlement following a separation from her husband.
[1] Section 134(1) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, 1935.
Count 2 is an offence of aggravated deception.[2] On 12 June 2015, Mrs Russell (the mother of Ms Wright) signed a mortgage document which the accused produced to her. Mrs Russell had no idea she was signing such a document. The mortgagee was Mango Capital Pty Ltd. No payments were made on the mortgage and consequently, Mrs Russell lost her house.
[2] Section 139(b) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, 1935.
Count 3 is an offence of aggravated dishonestly dealing with documents.[3] This offence concerns a document entitled ‘Authority’. The prosecution case is that this document was falsely produced to Mango Capital Pty Ltd to obtain a loan from Mango Capital Pty Ltd with the purported approval of Mrs Russell. The prosecution alleges this offence was committed before the accused duped Mrs Russell into signing the mortgage on her home, which is the subject of count 2.
[3] Section 140(4) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, 1935.
The accused pleaded guilty before the jury panel to count 4, the offence of fabricating evidence. That relates to an affidavit of Mrs Russell filed on 9 May 2016 in…

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 Freer

Details

AGLC: R v Freer [2021] SADC 81
Case: [2021] SADC 81
Decision Date: 6 July 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Freer involved the respondent, Freer, who was charged with various offences, including causing harm to a child. The case was heard in a relevant Australian court, where the trial judge was tasked with determining whether there was sufficient evidence to support a conviction on each of the charges. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the trial judge had the authority to direct a no-case submission after closing addresses had been completed by both the prosecution and defence. Additionally, the court had to consider whether there was a prima facie case to be made out on each of the charges against the respondent.

The court examined the principles surrounding a no-case submission and the trial judge's powers in this context. The court noted that the power to make a no-case submission is not limited to the stage before the defence case is closed, but can also be exercised after the prosecution has presented its case and the defence has made its closing address. The court found that the trial judge had the authority to assess the sufficiency of the evidence at any point during the trial. In this case, the trial judge concluded that there was no case to be answered on counts 2 and 3 of the indictment and ordered the jury to acquit the respondent on those counts. Regarding count 1, the trial judge determined that the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction and ordered the jury to be discharged.

The court upheld the trial judge's decision to find no case on counts 2 and 3 and ordered that the jury be directed to acquit the respondent on those counts. The court also found that the trial judge's decision to discharge the jury on count 1 was correct, given the insufficiency of the evidence. The final orders of the court were that the jury would be directed to acquit the respondent on counts 2 and 3, and the jury would be discharged on count 1.

Orders

Orders of the court

Held: A trial judge has power to find no case after closing addresses have been completed. There is no case on counts 2 and 3. The jury will be directed to acquit the accused on those counts. The jury will be discharged on count 1.

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

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.