Criminal Law—Appeal—Court of criminal appeal—Separate reasons for judgment delivered by members of Court—Majority decision to allow appeal—No majority in favour of any single ground of appeal—"Question"—"Judgment"—Criminal Law Consolidation Act, 1935-1969 (S.A), s. 349.* Criminal Law—Appeal—Errors in conduct of trial—No single error warranting verdict's being set aside. Criminal Law—Evidence—Police interrogation—Interrogation continued after refusal by suspected person to answer further questions—Admissibility of subsequent questions and answers—Discretion of judge to exclude—Duties of police. Criminal Law—Evidence—Photographs taken for purpose other than identification—Power of police to compel person to be photographed—Medical examination in breach of statutory requirements—Admissibility of photographs and evidence of medical examination—Discretion of judge to exclude—Police Offences Act, 1953-1967 (S.A.), s. 81.
Decisions
July 3. The following written judgments were delivered:- BARWICK C.J. The Attorney-General of the State of South Australia seeks special leave to appeal against a decision of the Supreme Court of South Australia sitting as a Court of Criminal Appeal (2) by which that Court set aside the conviction of the respondent for murder and ordered a new trial of the charge against him. The Solicitor-General of the State of South Australia who appeared on the application placed before the Court and fully argued all the submissions which he would advance in support of an appeal, if special leave should be granted. The Court was thus in a position at the close of argument on the application for special leave to decide whether it would allow an appeal from the decision of the Supreme Court, if it granted special leave to appeal. Being satisfied after considering all that was advanced in argument before it, that it would not have allowed such an appeal, the Court on the conclusion of argument announced that it would refuse special leave on the ground that an appeal brought in pursuance of it would fail. The Court then indicated that it would in due course reduce to writing its reasons for its decision to refuse special leave to appeal. (at p325)
2. The female licensee of an hotel in the City of Adelaide was murdered by stabbing with a household knife or knives between 9.30 and 10.30 p.m. on the night of Sunday, 16th November 1969. Her body was found on the morning of Monday, 17th November, on the floor of the kitchen of her hotel lying face upwards, death having occurred by bleeding, somewhere about half to one hour after the stabbing. A great deal of blood was beneath and around the body. Amongst the knives found in a drawer in the kitchen three on examination showed traces of human blood protein and the handle of one of them was broken. There was evidence from which it could be concluded that on the preceding Saturday the handle of that knife had been intact. The suggestion at the trial was that this knife, which could have been a weapon with…
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 Ireland
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Ireland [1970] HCA 21
Case
[1970] HCA 21
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of *R v Ireland* concerned an appeal to the High Court of Australia following a conviction for assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The appellant, Ireland, had made a series of abusive and threatening telephone calls to a woman, causing her significant distress and fear. The central dispute revolved around whether the psychological harm inflicted by these calls constituted "actual bodily harm" for the purposes of the offence under the relevant legislation.
The High Court was required to determine whether actual bodily harm, as contemplated by the offence, could encompass psychiatric injury or mental disturbance. Specifically, the court had to consider the definition of "bodily" in the context of the harm caused and whether the psychological impact of the telephone calls met the threshold for actual bodily harm.
The Court held that actual bodily harm is not confined to physical injury and can include psychiatric injury. The reasoning was that the law should not distinguish between the effects of physical violence and the effects of violence inflicted by words or other means, provided that the harm is substantial and not merely transient or trifling. The Court found that the fear and distress experienced by the victim, which led to a recognised psychiatric illness, constituted actual bodily harm.
The appeal was dismissed, with the High Court upholding the conviction.