R v Jeisman - [2014] SADC 11

District Court of South Australia
(Criminal)
R v JEISMAN
[2014] SADC 11
Ruling of His Honour Judge Slattery (ex tempore)
13 January 2014
CRIMINAL LAW - PROCEDURE - TRIAL HAD BEFORE JUDGE WITHOUT JURY - ELECTION
Application by accused for an extension of time to elect for trial by judge alone - application made at a directions hearing held one day prior to the commencement of the trial - at the time of arraignment the accused had not been supplied by the prosecution with certain depositions or other electronic material which were to be led by the prosecution during the trial – submitted by counsel for the accused that in the alleged absence of the necessary evidentiary trail going to questions of proof, the accused did not give consideration to the question of election of trial by judge alone - – application not opposed by the prosecutor - whether special reasons for an extension of time existed.
Held: application granted – obligation generally upon the prosecution to furnish the accused with a proof of the witness’ proposed evidence – the prosecution delivered further relevant material to the accused very late - special reasons for an extension of time existed and it would be unjust to refuse the application.
Controlled Substances Act 1984 sub-s32(3), sub-s32(5) ; Juries Act 1927 s7, S8; Juries Rules Rule 16, Rule 17, Rule 18; Criminal Law South Australia Para. 700.7(7) (at page 1311), referred to.
Acre Development Pty Ltd v National Companies and Securities Commission and Anor (1987) 46 SASR 238 , applied.
The Queen v Gavare [2011] SASCFC 38; The Queen v Haydon (2000) 76 SASR 265 , discussed.
Baskerville v Martin [1967] SASR 142; Saturno v Dunsmore (1981) 28 SASR 4; Barwick v Crichton (1983) 36 SASR 142; Jurowshi v Sallis (1984) 36 SASR 261 ; Jess v Scott (1986) 12 FCR 187; R v Von Einem (1985) 38 SASR 207 ; Fairclough v Stewart-Rattray (2012) 278 LSJS 435 ; White v South Australia (2007) 96 SASR 581; Acre Development Pty Ltd v National Companies & Securities Commission (1987) 46 SASR 238; Boscolo v The Secretary, Department of Social Security (1999) 90 FCR 531; Goldsmith v Newman (1992) 59 SASR 404; R v Van Beelen (1974) 9 SASR 163 ; R v Utans (1982) 29 SASR 592 ; R v Cox (1997) 196 LSJS 3, considered.

R v JEISMAN
[2014] SADC 11
JUDGE SLATTERY

In this matter the defendant is charged on information with the offence of trafficking in a controlled drug contrary to sub-s32(3) of the Controlled Substances Act 1984.
The allegations are that the defendant left a home at an address at Ferryden Park that was under police observation. The defendant was the focus of the police observations of this home. He was riding a bicycle and was carrying a dog. He was then stopped by police and on his person police found a plastic bottle container which held a number…

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 Jeisman

Details

AGLC: R v Jeisman [2014] SADC 11
Case: [2014] SADC 11
Decision Date: 13 January 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Jeisman involved an application by the accused for an extension of time to elect for a trial by judge alone. The matter came before the court during a directions hearing held the day prior to the scheduled commencement of the trial. A significant issue at the time of the accused's arraignment was the prosecution's failure to provide certain depositions and other electronic material, which were intended to be used as evidence during the trial. Counsel for the accused argued that due to the absence of the necessary evidentiary material, the accused had not had the opportunity to consider the option of a trial by judge alone. The prosecution did not oppose the application for an extension of time.

The central legal issue before the court was whether special circumstances existed that would justify an extension of time for the accused to make an election. The court considered the obligation of the prosecution to furnish the accused with a proof of the witness’ proposed evidence and noted that the prosecution had delivered additional relevant material to the accused very late. In light of these circumstances, the court found that special reasons did indeed exist for granting the extension. The court concluded that it would be unjust to deny the application under the given circumstances.

The court granted the application for an extension of time, recognising that the prosecution's late delivery of crucial evidence significantly impacted the accused's ability to make an informed election. The court referred to several legislative provisions and rules, including sections of the Controlled Substances Act 1984, the Juries Act 1927, and the Juries Rules, as well as relevant criminal law principles. This decision underscores the importance of timely disclosure of evidence by the prosecution and the court's commitment to ensuring a fair trial process.

No additional orders were made beyond granting the application for an extension of time. The court's decision allowed the accused to make an informed election regarding the mode of trial, which was significantly delayed due to the prosecution's late provision of critical evidence.

Orders