R v Jamie Schofield (No 3)

R V JAMIE SCHOFIELD (NO 3)
[2013] ACTSC 249 (21 November 2013)

CRIMINAL LAW – Trial – trial by judge alone – sufficiency of evidence at the close of case for prosecution to make out a case for the accused to answer – whether a Prasad direction directing the acquittal of the accused should be made – direction not made

R v Prasad (1979) 23 SASR 161
R v Schofield (No 2) [2013] ACTSC 248

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT

No. SCC 63 of 2013

Judge: Refshauge J
Supreme Court of the ACT

Date: 21 November 2013

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE     )
  )          No. SCC 63 of 2013
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY           )

R
V
JAMIE SCHOFIELD

ORDER

Judge:  Refshauge J
Date:  21 November 2013
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

A Prasad direction not be given to His Honour

In this trial the prosecution has closed its case against the accused, Jamie Schofield, who is charged with four offences, two of which are alternatives to the other two.

Mr Schofield, through his counsel Mr A Hopkins, made a submission that there was no case to answer in respect of the two more serious counts of assault occasioning actual bodily harm.

In respect of one count, the prosecution, represented by Mr A Williamson, very properly conceded that it must be accepted, and I entered a verdict of acquittal on that charge.

In respect of the other charge, I adjourned briefly and, after deliberating, found that there was no case to answer in respect of that count also: R v Schofield (No 2) [2013] ACTSC 248.

The two alternative counts of common assault remain.

Mr Hopkins invited me to give myself a direction that I could acquit Mr Schofield without the trial proceeding. This is known as a Prasad direction, the name coming from the decision of the Full Court of the South Australian Supreme Court in R v Prasad (1979) 23 SASR 161. In that case King CJ said:

It is, of course, open to the jury at any time after the close of the case for the prosecution to inform the judge that the evidence which they have heard is insufficient to justify a conviction and to bring in a verdict of not guilty without hearing more. It is within the discretion of the judge to inform the jury of this right, and if he [or she] decides to do so he [or she] usually tells them at the close of the case for the prosecution that they may [exercise the right] then or at any later stage of the proceedings.

In order for me to exercise my discretion as requested I would have to be satisfied that the evidence against Mr Schofield is such that a jury ought to be instructed that it could, if it wishes, return a verdict of not guilty in respect of him, without hearing further evidence.

I have had the opportunity of reviewing the evidence against Mr Schofield.

I am satisfied that this is not a proper case in which to give a Prasad direction and I decline to do so.
I certify that the preceding nine (9) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of his Honour, Justice Refshauge.
Associate:
Date: 13 December 2013

Counsel for the Applicant:  Mr A Williamson
Solicitor for the Applicant:  Director of Public Prosecutions (ACT)
Counsel for the Respondent:  Mr A Hopkins
Solicitor for the Respondent:  Darryl Perkins Solicitors
Date of hearing:  20-1 November 2013
Date of judgment:  21 November 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this criminal trial, the defendant, Jamie Schofield, faced charges before the Supreme Court of South Australia. The primary dispute centred around the sufficiency of evidence presented by the prosecution at the conclusion of their case. The trial was conducted without a jury, with the judge presiding alone. The defendant was charged with an offence related to criminal activity, though the specific details of the charge are not elaborated upon in the provided text.

The legal issues before the court involved determining whether the evidence presented by the prosecution was sufficient to warrant the defendant answering to the charge. The court was required to assess if the prosecution had made out a case that, if left unanswered, would allow a jury, properly directed, to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the defendant's guilt. This assessment involved scrutinising the evidence to determine if there was a real possibility that the defendant was guilty of the offence.

The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to allow the case to proceed to the defendant. The reasoning involved a detailed examination of the evidence presented, including the credibility of witnesses and the consistency of statements. The judge determined that a real possibility existed that the defendant committed the offence, and thus, the prosecution's case was adequate. Consequently, a Prasad direction, which would have directed the acquittal of the defendant, was not made. This decision was based on the judge's assessment that the prosecution had provided enough evidence to proceed to trial.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established