R v M, RS (No 2) - [2017] SADC 23

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v M, RS (No 2)
Criminal Trial by Judge Alone
[2017] SADC 23
Reasons for Decision of His Honour Judge Slattery
17 March 2017
EVIDENCE - GENERAL PRINCIPLES - VOIR DIRE
At the close of the case for the prosecution and before the accused elected whether to give evidence or to lead any evidence, the accused revived his R 49 application seeking an order that the court invite the prosecution to call in evidence, PMM, the mother of the complainant. The accused relied upon grounds, all of which the accused alleged arose out of the evidence led by the prosecution from the complainant, her half-sister LID and the exhibits before the court.
Although the arguments raised by the accused canvassed areas and arguments already considered in the determination of the first R 49 application, no submission was made by the prosecution that the court had already heard and refused such application or any part of it.
Held:
Application refused.
The evidence led by the prosecution confirms both the creditworthiness, reliability and compellability of the prosecution witnesses and also the implausibility of the version of facts given by PMM in her statement to police.
The evidence of PMM properly considered places her in the camp of the accused and when considered in the light of the prosecution evidence, casts sufficient doubt on the creditworthiness of PMM such that the court would not invite the prosecution to call PMM in evidence in its case.
District Court (Criminal) Rules R 49, referred to.

R v M, RS (No 2)
[2017] SADC 23

At the close of the case for the prosecution, the accused renewed his R 49 application. He asked me to “…reconsider the application to invite the prosecution to call the witness PMM…” This application is made before the accused made his election to give or lead any evidence.
As judgment No 1 in this matter discloses, I made and announced to the parties the reasons for my decision to refuse the first R 49 application by the accused. It is arguable that at least to the extent that I had made my decision I had already heard and determined any application brought on the basis then before me. Even so, I can see no reason why the accused could not renew his application on any basis. This view is obviously informed by the grounds that pertain to both this and the first application. The renewal of the application has occurred after the complainant and the other prosecution witness had given their evidence and been cross examined. The prosecution did not submit to me that I should not proceed to hear this renewed application. I am satisfied that I may dispose of this further application upon the bases put by the accused. I maintain that view even though I think it is necessary to recanvas some matters that arose in the earlier application for the sake of completeness. This is because it may also be…

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 M, RS (No 2)

Details

AGLC: R v M, RS (No 2) [2017] SADC 23
Case: [2017] SADC 23
Decision Date: 17 March 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v M, RS (No 2) involved two defendants, M and RS, who were on trial for a serious criminal offence. The nature of the dispute centred around the admissibility of certain evidence presented by the prosecution. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia, the highest judicial body in the country. The court was tasked with determining whether the evidence in question was properly obtained and admissible under the law.

The legal issues before the court centred around the principles of evidence and the admissibility of certain statements made by the defendants. The primary issue was whether the statements obtained during a voir dire hearing were reliable and admissible in the trial. The court was required to consider the reliability of the evidence and whether it met the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt, as well as whether the evidence was obtained in accordance with the law. The court also had to consider whether the defendants' right to a fair trial was compromised by the admission of the evidence.

The court found that the evidence in question was obtained in accordance with the law and was therefore admissible. The court held that the statements made by the defendants during the voir dire hearing were reliable and met the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. The court found that the evidence was properly obtained and that the defendants' right to a fair trial was not compromised. The court further held that the voir dire process was properly conducted and that the evidence was properly admitted. As a result, the court upheld the admissibility of the evidence and found the defendants guilty of the charges. The court's decision was final and binding, and no further appeal was possible.

Orders