R v Jones

The case of *R v Jones* concerned an appeal against conviction for aggravated causing harm with intent to cause harm. The applicant, Raymond Patrick Harley Jones, was tried by judge and jury and convicted on 19 October 2016. He subsequently absconded from bail during the trial and was arrested on 19 December 2016. The appeal was heard by the Court of Criminal Appeal of South Australia, comprising Kourakis CJ, Peek and Nicholson JJ.

The central legal issue before the Court of Criminal Appeal was whether the trial judge erred in law by preventing the applicant from cross-examining the complainant, Mr Cailes, about his alleged violent and dishonest past. The applicant contended that this cross-examination was crucial for two reasons: to support a defence of lawful defence of another by demonstrating Mr Cailes' propensity for violence, and to generally attack Mr Cailes' credit and credibility, thereby influencing the jury's assessment of his evidence. A further issue was whether the defence of lawful defence of another could arise on the evidence presented.

The Court found that the trial judge had erred in law. It was not for the jury to "determine an issue of whether self-defence arose," but rather for the defence to raise it and for the prosecution to disprove it beyond reasonable doubt, provided the elements of the defence under section 15 of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 were met. The Court noted that the cross-examination of Mr Cailes regarding his concern for Mr Dowsett and his denial of swinging an adjustable spanner at anyone indicated that a defence of lawful defence of another might have been arguable. The Court also considered that the applicant's conduct in absconding weighed against an extension of time, but this was outweighed by the importance of correcting the legal error and maintaining the integrity of the criminal trial process.

The Court ordered that the applicant be granted an extension of time within which to file the appeal, allowed the appeal, and remitted the matter to the District Court for retrial.