R v Gould No. Sccrm-99-111, Sccrm-99-153 Judgment No. S488

R v GOULD
[1999] SASC 488

Court of Criminal Appeal: Duggan, Debelle and Lander JJ
Application to be considered in private

DUGGAN J. This matter came before a single judge of the court on an application for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence.
After amendment there were seven grounds of appeal against conviction. The single judge granted leave to appeal on grounds 1 and 5, and refused leave to appeal on grounds 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7. He also refused lave to appeal against sentence.
The applicant then applied to the Full Court for leave to appeal on all grounds in respect of which leave had been refused. He also applied to the Full Court for leave to appeal against sentence.
The application was considered in private by myself, Justice Debelle and Justice Lander.
We are unanimously of the view that leave to appeal should be granted on grounds 4 and 7 and that leave should be refused on grounds 2, 3 and 6.
We are also unanimously of the view that leave to appeal against sentence should be refused.
The order of the court will be as follows: leave to appeal on grounds 4 and 7, in addition to the grounds on which the single judge gave leave.
Particulars of ground 7 are to be provided within seven days of today’s date.
Leave to appeal is refused on grounds 2, 3 and 6. Leave to appeal against sentence is refused.
In case there should be any confusion about the numbering of grounds, I point out that grounds 1 to 5 are contained in the amended grounds of appeal, and grounds 6 and 7 are contained in the original grounds of appeal.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This appeal concerns an application for leave to appeal against both conviction and sentence. The matter was initially heard by a single judge of the Court of Criminal Appeal who granted leave to appeal on two grounds but refused leave on the others, as well as against sentence. The applicant then sought leave to appeal on the grounds on which leave was refused, as well as leave to appeal against sentence, before the Full Court. The Full Court, consisting of Duggan, Debelle and Lander JJ, considered the application in private and issued a unanimous decision.

The primary legal issues before the Full Court were whether the applicant should be granted leave to appeal on the grounds on which the single judge had refused leave, and whether leave to appeal against sentence should be granted. The Full Court was required to assess the merits of the appeal grounds and determine whether they had sufficient merit to warrant an appeal.

The Full Court determined that leave to appeal should be granted on grounds 4 and 7, in addition to the grounds on which the single judge granted leave. The Court refused leave to appeal on grounds 2, 3 and 6, as well as leave to appeal against sentence. Duggan J, on behalf of the Full Court, clarified that grounds 1 to 5 were contained in the amended grounds of appeal, and grounds 6 and 7 were contained in the original grounds of appeal. The Court also directed that particulars of ground 7 be provided within seven days of the date of the decision.

In summary, the Full Court granted leave to appeal on two additional grounds, refused leave on the other grounds, and also refused leave to appeal against sentence. The Court's decision clarified the numbering of the grounds of appeal and set a deadline for the provision of particulars for one of the grounds on which leave was granted.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established