The accused is charged with one count of aggravated recklessly causing serious harm contrary to s 23(2)(b) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (CLCA). In particular, it is alleged that he, on 14 May 2012, at Clearview, caused serious harm to a female named KLJ, being reckless as to whether such harm was caused. The circumstance of aggravation alleged is that he used an offensive weapon, namely a baseball bat, when committing the crime.
I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty as charged. My reasons are as follows.
Introduction
The complainant and the accused were well known to each other. They had been in a relationship for about seven years. The complainant terminated the relationship some six months before the morning in question. They nonetheless remained friends.
It was the prosecution case that the accused went to the complainant’s home unit at about 6.30 am on the morning in question, that he became angry when he saw the complainant and another man in the lounge room of the premises, that he picked up a baseball bat and either hit the complainant on the head with the bat, or threw it at her head, thus fracturing her skull and causing associated injuries. For convenience I will use the expression “struck her with the bat” to include both mechanisms.
It was the accused’s…
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 HACKETT
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Hackett [2014] SADC 173
Case
[2014] SADC 173
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The accused was charged with one count of aggravated recklessly causing serious harm. The prosecution case was that the accused, who was known to the complainant, went to her home, saw her with another man, and either hit her on the head with a baseball bat, or threw it at her head, fracturing her skull and causing associated injuries. The accused’s case was that he threw the bat at the television or wall as he was leaving and that it bounced off a wall and struck the complainant by accident. The accused did not give evidence and no other evidence was called. The accused was found guilty. The complainant and the accused had been in a relationship for about seven years. The complainant had terminated the relationship some six months before the incident in question, but they remained friends. The complainant gave evidence of a history of physical violence and property damage on the part of the accused during the course of the relationship. The accused denied all of this. The court was required to determine the admissibility of this evidence. It was the complainant’s evidence that the accused had a behavioural proclivity to become physically violent towards her when he felt sufficiently provoked by her during the course of incidents that were attended by overtones of jealousy on the part of either of them. This evidence was found to be admissible for non-propensity purposes. The accused’s propensity was also found to amount to circumstantial evidence which could be used to rebut accident and to prove his intentions towards the complainant at the relevant time. The court found that the accused deliberately caused the impact between the bat and the complainant’s head. The accused was found guilty of the charge.