Court of Criminal Appeal: Duggan, Lander and Bleby JJ
1................ DUGGAN AND BLEBY JJ. The appellants were convicted of the murders of Leslie Knowles and Timothy Richards and the attempted murder of Kim Traeger at Lonsdale on 15 August 1996. They have appealed against these convictions.
The charges arose out of a shooting incident which took place at the Lonsdale workshop of Mr Knowles who conducted an automobile repair business. Mr Richards was a friend who worked at the workshop on a casual basis. Mr Traeger and another man, Stephen Leane, were employed at the workshop as mechanics.
Shortly after midday on Thursday 15 August 1996 Knowles and Richards were in an office at the front of the workshop. Leane and Traeger were in the main workshop area working on motor vehicles. Leane was working under a utility and Traeger was standing next to this vehicle. A yellow van pulled up at the entrance to the workshop. A masked man alighted from the front passenger door of the van and walked through the workshop into the office. He was heard to say “Are you Les? Are you Les?”. Knowles and Richards both replied that they were not “Les”. The man then aimed a pistol at Knowles and shot him in the head. He then shot Richards in the head.
As he walked out of the office and through the workshop the man saw Traeger. He said “Are you Les?”. Traeger denied that he was Les and offered to produce his driver’s licence. The man then raised the pistol and aimed it at Traeger who dropped to the ground as the gun was fired. The bullet grazed the inside of his left wrist. The man then got back into the van which was driven off by a driver who had been sitting in the van. Knowles and Richards died from their injuries.
According to the prosecution case, the gunman was the appellant Gerald Preston (“Preston”) and the driver of the van was the appellant Gillard. The prosecution alleged that the killings were carried out at the behest of a man named Tognolini who was said to have promised Preston approximately $10,000 to kill Knowles.
Approximately 25 minutes after the shootings a yellow Ford Econovan was found burning in a car park at the rear of a shop on Beach Road, Christies Beach. The car park is situated approximately 900 metres from where Preston was living at the time. Gillard also lived in the area, although a little further away from the car park. The van had been stolen on Monday 12 August and the prosecution allege that it was the vehicle used in the shootings.
The initial police enquiries focused upon the van. Police officers investigated a report of a van answering the description of the vehicle used in the robbery which had been seen in the car park of a block of units at Hilton in the days leading up to 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.
Continue reading R v Gillard and Preston
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Gillard and Preston [2000] SASC 454
Case
[2000] SASC 454
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appellants, Gillard and Preston, were convicted of the murders of Leslie Knowles and Timothy Richards and the attempted murder of Kim Traeger. The Court of Criminal Appeal heard appeals against these convictions. Gillard and Preston argued that there were errors in the trial judge's directions to the jury and that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdicts. Gillard also argued that the verdicts were unsafe and unsatisfactory. The Court held that the appeals should be dismissed. The Court found that the trial judge's directions were correct and that the evidence was sufficient to support the verdicts. The Court held that the verdicts were not unsafe or unsatisfactory.