Court of Criminal Appeal: Doyle CJ, Williams & Wicks JJ
1................ DOYLE CJ...... The appellant appeals against his conviction by a Judge who heard a trial on Information without a jury.
The appellant complains that the Judge, a Judge of the District Court, “erred in law in failing to give adequate reasons” for preferring the evidence of prosecution witnesses to the evidence of the defendant and his witnesses, and for entering a verdict of guilty on the basis of that evidence. The appellant also complains that the Judge erred in law in failing to direct himself as to certain matters of law and fact that fell for decision in the course of reaching his decision. The appellant complains that there has been a miscarriage of justice, and that the verdict is “unsafe and/or against the evidence”.
As the argument developed it was apparent that in substance it is a submission that to find the appellant guilty the Judge had to make a decision, in the light of certain rules of law, as to the use to be made of evidence before him. He also had to have regard to certain principles affecting his assessment of that evidence. The complaint is that the Judge has failed, in his reasons, to explain adequately or at all how he dealt with these matters. The complaint is also that the Judge failed to give adequate reasons for preferring the evidence of the complainant to that of the appellant, and for reaching a conclusion of guilt on the basis of the her evidence.
A decision in the case requires some consideration of the obligations of a Judge to give reasons for a decision, as to the guilt of an accused, that would otherwise have been made by a jury, and that by virtue of s 7(4) of the Juries Act 1927 (SA) (“the Juries Act”) is to “have the same effect as a verdict of a jury”.
Facts
The appellant was charged with six offences on a single Information. The alleged victim in each case was Ms C. The appellant and Ms C began a relationship in 1984 that lasted until early 1998. Four children were born of the relationship.
The offences charged were as follows. Count 1 charged an assault occasioning actual bodily harm, alleged to have occurred in about 1984. Count 2 charged an assault occasioning actual bodily harm, alleged to have occurred between 1 January 1985 and 31 December 1985. Count 3 charged a common assault alleged to have occurred between 1 September 1985 and 1 April 1986. Count 4 was a charge of rape, alleged to have occurred between 1 November 1997 and 30 November 1997. Count 5 was an offence of threatening life, alleged to have occurred on about 28 November 1997. Count 6 charged rape, alleged to have occurred on 8 January 1998.
The appellant elected to be tried by a Judge alone, an entitlement conferred on him by s 7(1) of…
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 Keyte
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Keyte [2000] SASC 382
Case
[2000] SASC 382
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In R v Keyte, the appellant, Keyte, was convicted on five counts by a Judge sitting alone in the District Court. The appellant appealed against his conviction on the basis that the Judge failed to give adequate reasons for preferring the evidence of the prosecution witnesses to his own evidence and for entering a verdict of guilty on the basis of that evidence. The appellant also argued that there was a miscarriage of justice. The Court of Criminal Appeal considered the obligation of a Judge to give reasons for a decision that would have the same effect as a verdict of a jury. The Court concluded that there was an obligation for a Judge to give reasons for a decision which, by s 7(4) of the Juries Act, has “the same effect as a verdict of a jury”, and that the failure to do so is an error of law. The Court found that the reasons provided by the Judge were inadequate, particularly in relation to the use of evidence of uncharged acts and the use of evidence on one count in proof of another count. The Court set aside the convictions and ordered a re-trial on counts 1, 2, 3 and 5, and directed a verdict of acquittal on count 4.