R v Heyward & Minter - [2010] SASCFC 38

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Court of Criminal Appeal)
R v HEYWARD & MINTER
[2010] SASCFC 38
Judgment of The Court of Criminal Appeal
(The Honourable Chief Justice Doyle, The Honourable Justice Duggan and The Honourable Justice Bleby)
28 September 2010
CRIMINAL LAW - EVIDENCE - JUDICIAL DISCRETION TO ADMIT OR EXCLUDE EVIDENCE - EVIDENCE UNFAIR TO ADMIT OR IMPROPERLY OBTAINED - PARTICULAR CASES
CRIMINAL LAW - EVIDENCE - JUDICIAL DISCRETION TO ADMIT OR EXCLUDE EVIDENCE - POLICE INTERROGATION - PROPRIETY OF POLICE QUESTIONING AND OTHER CONDUCT BY POLICE - ADMINISTERING CAUTION - GENERALLY
CRIMINAL LAW - EVIDENCE - CONFESSIONS AND ADMISSIONS - STATEMENTS - RECORDS OF INTERVIEW - DISCRETION TO EXCLUDE
Appeal against conviction for murder - appellant Heyward interviewed without being cautioned - Judge excluded these interviews - subsequent interviews conducted where appropriate warnings and cautions given - Judge admitted these interviews - Judge excluded those parts of subsequent admitted interviews that referred to excluded interviews - whether Judge should have excluded subsequent interviews entirely - whether trial rendered unfair by admission of subsequent interviews - ground of appeal rejected.

CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL - MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION - CONSIDERATION OF SUMMING UP AS A WHOLE
CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL - MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION - PRESENTATION OF DEFENCE CASE
CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL - MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION - REVIEW OF EVIDENCE
Appellant Heyward complained about Judge's directions on topic of circumstantial evidence - whether Judge failed to put defence case adequately - whether Judge should have reminded jury of reasons why they might not accept certain pieces of evidence - whether Judge should have said something to jury about the competing inferences to be drawn from the circumstantial evidence - whether any prejudice suffered because of Judge's incorrect categorisation of some evidence - grounds of appeal rejected.

CRIMINAL LAW - EVIDENCE - CORROBORATION - WARNING REQUIRED OR ADVISABLE - ACCOMPLICES - GENERALLY
Appellant Heyward submitted that Judge erred in failing to direct or warn jury to exercise caution in relying on evidence of co-accused Minter to draw an inference adverse to him - whether Judge should have given an accomplice warning - no basis for suggesting that items of evidence in question were given for purpose of serving co-accused's own interest - application for permission to appeal granted - ground of appeal rejected.

CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE - APPEAL DISMISSED
Appellant Heyward contended that combined effect of grounds of appeal rendered jury’s verdict unsafe and unsatisfactory – ground of appeal rejected – appeal dismissed.

CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL - CONDUCT OF PROSECUTOR OR PROSECUTION
Appeal against conviction for murder – appellant Minter contended that publication of a newspaper article required discharge of jury – prosecutor gave an interview to a weekly newspaper published throughout…

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 Heyward & Minter

Details

AGLC: R v Heyward & Minter [2010] SASCFC 38
Case: [2010] SASCFC 38
Decision Date: 28 September 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This matter concerned appeals against convictions for murder by the appellants, Heyward and Minter. Heyward's appeal raised several grounds, including the admissibility of police interviews, the trial judge's directions on circumstantial evidence and the defence case, the failure to give an accomplice warning regarding Minter's evidence, and the overall safety and satisfactoriness of the verdict. Minter's appeal also raised multiple grounds, focusing on the publication of a newspaper article during the trial, the adequacy of the judge's directions on intoxication, the admissibility of his admissions to police, and the overall safety of the verdict.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the trial judge erred in admitting certain police interviews with Heyward, despite initial interviews being excluded due to a lack of caution. The court also considered whether the judge's directions to the jury adequately presented the defence case, particularly concerning circumstantial evidence and the evidence of a co-accused. For Minter, the court examined whether the publication of a newspaper article warranted discharging the jury, whether the judge's directions on intoxication were sufficient, and whether Minter's admissions to police were improperly obtained or unfairly admitted, potentially overbearing his will or subverting his right to silence.

The court reasoned that while the initial interviews with Heyward were correctly excluded, subsequent interviews conducted with proper cautions were admissible. The judge's decision to exclude parts of the admitted interviews that referred to the excluded ones was deemed appropriate to prevent unfair prejudice. Regarding the directions on circumstantial evidence and the defence case, the court found that the summing up, when considered as a whole, adequately presented the defence's arguments and the competing inferences. The absence of an explicit accomplice warning was justified as there was no evidence that Minter's testimony was given to serve his own interests. For Minter, the newspaper article was not considered sufficiently prejudicial to warrant a mistrial, and the directions on intoxication were found adequate. The admissions made by Minter to the police were deemed voluntary and not obtained through improper pressure or inducement, thus their admission did not render the trial unfair.

Consequently, the court dismissed Minter's appeal against conviction. For Heyward, permission to appeal was granted on specific grounds relating to the admissibility of evidence and the addition of a further ground, but his appeal against conviction was otherwise dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

I would reject this ground of appeal.Conclusion On the appeal by Matthew Heyward I would grant permission to appeal on Ground 4, and would grant permission to amend the Notice of Appeal to add Ground 5 and would grant permission to appeal on Ground 5. Subject to that, I would dismiss his appeal against conviction. On the appeal by Mr Minter the Court has already refused permission to appeal on Ground 2 and Ground 4. I would dismiss Mr Minter’s appeal against conviction. DUGGAN J: I would dismiss the appeals. I agree with the reasons of the Chief Justice. BLEBY J: I agree with the orders proposed by the Chief Justice and with his reasons. I have nothing to add to those reasons.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.