Legal Research
Cases
R v Green

R v Green

Case [2001] SASC 25 14 February 2001

Type to search within this case.

R v GREEN
[2001] SASC 25

Court of Criminal Appeal: Doyle CJ, Olsson and Bleby JJ

1................ DOYLE CJ....... This is an appeal against a conviction recorded by a Judge of the District Court after trial by Judge alone. A criminal trial may proceed without a jury pursuant to s 7 of the Juries Act 1927 (SA).

Olsson J has summarised the facts and identified the issues. I will not retrace that ground.
Mr Peek QC, counsel for the appellant, submits that the trial Judge’s reasons indicate that, on several issues arising at the trial, he directed himself inadequately, and that he reached conclusions by an unreliable process of reasoning. He submits that the verdict is “unreasonable or cannot be supported having regard to the evidence”, and that there has been a “miscarriage of justice”: see s 353(1) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA). His main submission is that the Judge’s reasons show that the Judge failed to consider adequately the substance of the defence case. He also advances a number of other specific criticisms of the Judge’s reasons, and these also are relied upon to buttress the complaints about the verdict.
I am of the opinion that the submissions for the appellant should be rejected, and that the appeal should be dismissed.

Duty to give reasons

By and large Mr Peek based his submissions on the manner in which the trial Judge dealt with issues that arose at trial. The effect of his submission was that the Judge’s reasoning was in particular respects unreliable, or that the Judge’s reasons demonstrated that the Judge had not considered the relevant issues satisfactorily.
No submissions were advanced by Mr Peek or by Mr Rofe QC, the Director of Public Prosecutions, as to the extent of the reasons required by a Judge sitting without a jury.
In relation to that matter I adhere to what I said in R v Keyte [2000] SASC 382 about the duty to give reasons. It is not necessary to take the matter any further in this case. The Judge has adequately disclosed his process of reasoning, and has dealt with the issues that arose at trial. The question is whether the reasons given by the Judge are flawed. The complaint that the Judge erred because he did not warn himself that he should exercise great care before convicting Mr Green, because of the delay between the incident in question and the trial, perhaps stands a little differently, but as will appear I am satisfied in any event that that complaint is not made out.

Treatment of the defence case

The trial Judge was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Ms Lockey did not consent to Mr Green having intercourse with her. That finding was not directly attacked on appeal, although some of the grounds argued are capable of affecting that finding as well as the finding mainly under attack. In my opinion there is no flaw demonstrated in this aspect of the Judge’s reasons.
The defence…

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 Green

Details

AGLC: R v Green [2001] SASC 25
Case: [2001] SASC 25
Decision Date: 14 February 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Green, the appellant appealed against his conviction for the crime of rape. The appellant's primary argument was that the trial judge failed to adequately consider the substance of the defence case, which was based on the possibility that the complainant was under the influence of a drug that may have affected her behaviour and responses during the incident. The appellant also argued that the trial judge failed to warn himself adequately about the impact of the delay between the incident and the trial on the reliability of the evidence. The Court of Criminal Appeal heard the appeal and rejected the appellant's submissions, dismissing the appeal and upholding the conviction. The Court found that the trial judge had adequately considered the defence case and provided sufficient reasons for his verdict. The Court also held that, given the circumstances of the case, there was no substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice due to the failure to give a warning about the impact of the delay on the evidence.

Orders