Legal Research
Cases
R v Glastonbury

R v Glastonbury

Case [2012] SASCFC 141 20 December 2012

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Court of Criminal Appeal)
R v GLASTONBURY
[2012] SASCFC 141
Judgment of The Court of Criminal Appeal
(The Honourable Chief Justice Kourakis, The Honourable Justice Sulan and The Honourable Justice Stanley)
20 December 2012
CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL - IRREGULARITIES IN RELATION TO JURY - OTHER CASES
Appeal against conviction - appellant convicted of three counts of aggravated robbery and one count of attempted aggravated robbery.
Juror alleged that an interaction between a Sheriff's officer and another juror, in respect of the appellant's height, took place - whether the Court can be satisfied that the jury would have returned the same verdict in the absence of the irregularity.
No logical conclusion could have been drawn as to the appellant's guilt from the assumed interaction - the jury would not have reached a different verdict had the interaction not occurred - this ground of appeal is dismissed.

CRIMINAL LAW - EVIDENCE - CORROBORATION - WARNING REQUIRED OR ADVISABLE - ACCOMPLICES - GENERALLY
The trial Judge erred by failing to warn the jury that they should scrutinise the evidence of the witness, Evans, with care should they consider her to be an accomplice - it was a further error to direct the jury that her evidence was capable of corroborating the evidence of Howell, an accomplice - the evidence of one accomplice is not able to corroborate the evidence of another - this ground of appeal is allowed.

CRIMINAL LAW - EVIDENCE - MATTERS RELATING TO PROOF - MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS - ALIBI
Whether the trial Judge erred in allowing the tender of an alibi notice by the Crown - on the premise that the notice was not admissible to prove a consciousness of guilt, the notice should not have been tendered, and the jury should have been directed to ignore the evidence of the Crown witness called to rebut the alibi - this ground of appeal is allowed.
Held: The proviso is not applicable in this case - the appeal is allowed, the convictions are quashed, the matter is remitted to the District Court for a retrial.
Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) s 246, s 285C, s 353, referred to.
R v K (2003) 59 NSWLR 431; R v Skaf and Anor (2004) 60 NSWLR 86; Davies v Director of Public Prosecutions [1954] AC 378; R v Turnbull (1985) 17 A Crim R 370; The King v Baskerville [1916] 2 KB 658; R v Webbe and Brown [1926] SASR 108; The Queen v Rigney (1975) 12 SASR 30, applied.
Tan Seng Kiah (1999) 106 A Crim R 276; Vaise v Delaval (1785) 99 ER 944; R v Minarowska and Koziol (2004) 60 NSWLR 86; R v Bates [1985] 1 NZLR 326; R v Gillespie New Zealand, Court of Criminal Appeal, 7 February 1989, unreported; R v Softley (1999) 206 LSJS 48; R v Emmett; R v Masland (1988) 14 NSWLR…

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 Glastonbury

Details

AGLC: R v Glastonbury [2012] SASCFC 141
Case: [2012] SASCFC 141
Decision Date: 20 December 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of *R v Glastonbury* concerned an appeal against a conviction for an offence. The appeal was heard by the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia, comprising Kourakis CJ, Sulan and Stanley JJ.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether certain irregularities that occurred in relation to the jury during the trial amounted to a miscarriage of justice, thereby entitling the appellant to a new trial. Specifically, the Court had to consider the nature and impact of these irregularities on the fairness of the proceedings.

The Court's reasoning focused on the principles governing appeals based on jury irregularities. It examined whether the conduct in question was so significant as to undermine the integrity of the verdict or to prejudice the appellant's right to a fair trial. The Court applied established legal principles concerning the circumstances in which an appellate court will intervene due to jury misconduct or irregularities, considering the potential for prejudice and the overall justice of the case.

The Court ultimately dismissed the appeal, finding that the irregularities identified did not occasion a miscarriage of justice.

Orders