R v Macdonald No. Sccrm-02-199 Summary

R v MACDONALD
[2002] SASC 295
Court of Criminal Appeal: Doyle CJ, Wicks and Besanko JJ

DOYLE CJ, WICKS and BESANKO JJ: This is an application for leave to appeal against conviction. A jury found the applicant guilty of the offence of unlawful sexual intercourse with a young woman aged 14 years. A Judge of this Court refused leave to appeal on the grounds set out in the Notice of Appeal. The applicant has requested that his application be considered by the Full Court and has requested that the Full Court exercise its power under Rule 15(8)(b) to order that the application be listed for oral argument. The Court orders accordingly. The Court has this morning heard submissions from counsel for the applicant and counsel for the director.
Having heard those submissions, the Court grants leave to appeal on ground 5 in the Notice of Appeal and in relation to that ground, on ground 1 in the Notice of Appeal. The Court refuses leave in relation to grounds 2, 3 and 4.
I wish to make it clear that by that order what we mean is that we are not granting leave to appeal on the ground that the verdict was unsafe and unsatisfactory as such. We grant leave on the matters in ground 1 in relation to ground 5 because the matters in ground 1, which refer to suggested inadequacies in the complainant’s evidence, are the basis for the criticism of the warning which is the subject of ground 5.
Accordingly, leave to appeal is granted on ground 5 and in relation to ground 1. Leave to appeal is refused on grounds 2, 3 and 4.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Macdonald, the applicant sought leave to appeal against his conviction for unlawful sexual intercourse with a 14-year-old girl. The matter was before the South Australian Court of Criminal Appeal, comprising Doyle CJ, Wicks, and Besanko JJ. The trial judge had already declined to grant leave to appeal, but the applicant requested that the Full Court consider his application and exercise its power under Rule 15(8)(b) to list the application for oral argument. The Court agreed to review the application and heard submissions from both the applicant's and the Director's counsel.

The primary legal issues in this appeal were whether the Court should grant leave to appeal on the specified grounds outlined in the Notice of Appeal. Specifically, the applicant contested the trial judge's refusal of leave to appeal on ground 5, which concerned the adequacy of the jury's warning about the complainant's credibility, and ground 1, which questioned the reliability of the complainant's evidence. The Court had to determine whether these grounds provided sufficient justification for granting leave to appeal.

The Court of Criminal Appeal granted leave to appeal on ground 5 and in relation to ground 1, but denied leave on grounds 2, 3, and 4. Doyle CJ clarified that the leave was not granted on the basis that the verdict was unsafe or unsatisfactory but rather on the issues raised in ground 1 concerning the complainant's evidence, which were integral to the criticism of the jury's warning in ground 5. The Court thus concluded that these specific grounds warranted further examination on appeal.

The final orders of the Court were to grant leave to appeal on ground 5 and in relation to ground 1, while refusing leave on grounds 2, 3, and 4. This decision allowed the applicant's appeal to proceed on the specified grounds, enabling a review of the trial's handling of the complainant's evidence and the jury's warning.

R v Macdonald No. Sccrm-02-199

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established