R v Leedham - [2024] SASC 127

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)

R v LEEDHAM
Criminal Trial by Judge Alone
[2024] SASC 127
Reasons for the Verdict of the Honourable Auxiliary Justice Nicholson
5 November 2024
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON - HOMICIDE - MURDER
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON - HOMICIDE - DEATH - EVIDENCE - WHERE NO BODY
CRIMINAL LAW - GENERAL MATTERS - ANCILLARY LIABILITY - COMPLICITY - COMMON PURPOSE OR JOINT CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE
In the early hours of 7 February 2019, the accused drove Michael Jeffery Purse and his then companion (“A”) to a unit in Kilburn (“the Kilburn unit”), which was occupied by three people known to the accused (“B”, “C” and “D”). The prosecution case is that the accused, with the assistance of the Kilburn unit’s occupants, assaulted Mr Purse including by binding him with tape, repeatedly punching and kicking him, stomping on him, attempting to strangle him, putting him in headlocks and stabbing him.
Thereafter, the prosecution alleges that the accused and C rolled Mr Purse’s body in a rug and placed it in the boot of a car, before embarking on a failed attempt to dispose of the body in a remote location. It is accepted that C later did so alone. Mr Purse’s body has not been recovered.
The accused, C and D were charged with the murder of Mr Purse contrary to section 11 of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA). The accused was tried alone before a Judge sitting without a jury in accordance with the accused’s election made pursuant to section 7 of the Juries Act 1927 (SA).
The prosecution relies on the evidence of eyewitnesses (A and B), the truthfulness and reliability of which is challenged by the defence. In support of the defence contention, the accused gave evidence that Mr Purse attacked him in the Kilburn unit and in the course of a struggle, Mr Purse produced a knife and was accidentally stabbed. The accused’s evidence was that he departed the Kilburn unit when Mr Purse was injured but still alive.
The prosecution case depends on rejection of the accused’s account as being reasonably possible and acceptance beyond reasonable doubt of the account given by B of what occurred in the Kilburn unit.
Verdict
Murder of Michael Jeffery Purse – guilty.
Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) s 11; Juries Act 1927 (SA) s 7; Evidence Act 1929 (SA) ss 13, 34KA, 34P, 34Q, 34R, referred to.
Zoneff v The Queen (2000) 200 CLR 234; Edwards v The Queen (1993) 178 CLR 193; MDM v The Queen (2020) 136 SASR 360; Royall v The Queen (1991) 172 CLR 378; R v Hallett [1969] SASR 141; Miller v The Queen (2016) 259 CLR 380; Mitchell v The King (2023) 276 CLR 299; Likiardopoulos v The Queen (2012) 247 CLR 265; R v McCarthy [2015] SASCFC 177, considered.

R v LEEDHAM
[2024] SASC 127
Criminal:…

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 Leedham

Details

AGLC: R v Leedham [2024] SASC 127
Case: [2024] SASC 127
Decision Date: 5 November 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Leedham involved the defendant, Mark-Bry Andrew Leedham, who was charged with the murder of Michael Jeffery Purse. The key issue was whether Leedham had committed the murder of Purse, with the prosecution relying on circumstantial evidence due to the absence of a body. The case was heard in the South Australian Supreme Court.

The central legal issues the court had to decide were whether Leedham had the requisite intent to commit murder and if the prosecution's evidence, despite the lack of a body, was sufficient to prove the murder beyond reasonable doubt. The court had to assess the credibility of the prosecution's key witness, A, who provided crucial testimony regarding the events leading up to and following the incident. The court also needed to consider the reliability of A's evidence, given her methamphetamine addiction and irregular sleep patterns at the time.

The court found that Leedham had the intent to kill Purse and that the prosecution's evidence, despite lacking a body, was sufficient to prove the murder. The court relied on the testimony of A, who described witnessing Leedham punching and binding Purse with duct tape, and hearing a distressing noise from the bedroom. The court also found that the evidence of causation, particularly Leedham's intent and actions, supported the conviction of murder. The court concluded that Leedham's actions were the direct cause of Purse's death, even without a body.

The court found Mark-Bry Andrew Leedham guilty of the murder of Michael Jeffery Purse. The judgment detailed the court's reasoning and the evidence considered in reaching this decision.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

In the defence written closing address, a substantial number of propositions put during the prosecution opening which ultimately had no, or only tangential, support in the evidence have been identified. Many are of a relatively minor and unsurprising nature. The defence has not made a submission as to what should follow from these failures to come up to proof. There is no jury that might have been misled. I have considered the various matters. None are such as to cause me any concern from a defence perspective with respect to the fairness of the prosecution case as presented. I have not relied on any prosecution contention that is not supported by evidence adduced.Agreed facts The parties agreed a number of facts that were reduced to writing.[37] I accept that these matters have been established and I make findings accordingly. I include in these reasons a number of mobile phone text messages, the content of which is not challenged. Consistent with modern practice, spelling, grammar and punctuation conventions were not often observed. Except for a few entries and where helpful for a proper understanding, I have endeavoured to quote this material precisely as it appears in the telephone traffic records.The Kilburn unit prosecution witnesses[37] Exhibits P1 and P12A.A A was examined and cross-examined for a lengthy period of time. However, her evidence that directly supported the prosecution case was of a very narrow compass: that the visit to the Kilburn unit was the last time she had seen or heard from Mr Purse; that the accused punched Mr Purse and bound his hands (only) with silver grey duct tape before she went with D into his bedroom; that, whilst in the bedroom, she heard a “horrible noise, like a wounded animal being killed”; that it was daylight when she first came out of the bedroom briefly at which time the only person present in the Kilburn unit was B; that, when she emerged a second time, it was daylight and she saw the accused and C enter the Kilburn unit together; and that the accused then left after less than an hour. Whilst not examined or cross-examined about E in this context, she made no mention of seeing E come to the Kilburn unit with C. A was cross-examined at length about her pre-Kilburn unit conduct and her post-Kilburn unit conduct as part of a sustained credit attack. I have reviewed that evidence carefully; it is extensive and it is not necessary that I summarise all of it here. The nature of this evidence will be referred to during, or can be discerned from, the following discussion of defence criticisms bearing on her credit and reliability. A was 31 as at February 2019. She had met Mr Purse and immediately thereafter commenced a relationship with him about a month or two prior to the Kilburn unit incident; thereafter, they did not spend a day apart. She had been working as a prostitute at the Parlour, although she maintained that when she took up with Mr Purse she ceased working there at his request. Both A and Mr Purse were very heavy (daily) methamphetamine users. At this time, she was “very lost” and would sleep once a week or even every second week. It cannot be doubted that the reliability of A’s evidence, particularly as to its details and order of events, given five years later, would have been adversely affected. She gave this evidence.[38][38] T117-118.Q.Can you explain in what way it affected your perception of time.A.When you don’t sleep for weeks you forget what day it is, you definitely don’t know what month it is, like, and you very rarely care what time it is. You’re running on a different - you’re living in a different world.Q.What about your perception of time periods, for example, your perception of what an hour feels like or what five hours feels like, something like that.A.No, being on the amount of drugs that we were on, an hour could feel like a minute.HIS HONOURQ.[A] -A.Yes.Q.- I think you said earlier in your evidence that during this period you might have slept once a week or sometimes longer than that -A.Yes.Q.- or, sorry, once every two weeks.A.Yes.Q.When you did sleep, are you able to say for how long you slept.A.Sometimes I’d sleep like a whole day and then get back up and start again.Q.Was it ever longer than a whole day.A.I know there has been times but I couldn’t tell you when.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

It is unnecessary that I form a concluded view as to the correctness of this submission. However, the various authorities dealing with causation as a practical commonsense issue, helpfully summarised by Peek J in R v McCarthy,[288] and my finding concerning the accused’s specific intent as at the time of the stabbing and at all material times thereafter, support the conviction of murder on this simpler, more direct, basis.[288] [2015] SASCFC 177 at [335]-[342].Conclusion I find the accused, Mark-Bry Andrew Leedham, guilty of the murder of Michael Jeffery Purse.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.