R v Mackinder No. Sccrm-99-34 Judgment No. S198

R v MACKINDER
[1999] SASC 198

Court of Criminal Appeal: Doyle CJ, Prior and Mullighan JJ

DOYLE CJ: This is an application for leave to appeal against conviction. Mr Mackinder was convicted by the District Court on charges of possessing methylamphetamine for sale and of unlawful possession of $400.
The applicant, Mr Mackinder, seeks leave to appeal on the grounds that the trial judge erred in failing to exclude certain evidence tendered by the prosecution. The trial judge made his ruling after hearing evidence and submissions on the voir dire relating to the admissibility of the relevant evidence. Leave to appeal against the conviction was refused by Debelle J.
By application dated 8 April 1999, Mr Mackinder applied to have determined by the Full Court his application for leave to appeal against conviction. The application was considered by the Full Court in private pursuant to rule 15(7) of the Criminal Appeal Rules. The court for that purpose comprised me, Justice Prior and Justice Mullighan. We are unanimously of the opinion that leave to appeal should be refused.
The judge’s decision at the voir dire was based upon findings of fact that he made that were generally adverse to the case put forward by the applicant. There is no reasonable prospect of those findings of fact being set aside. As well, the judge said that he would have exercised his discretion to allow the evidence to be admitted, even if he had found that the relevant evidence was obtained unlawfully by the police officer in question.
Once again, in our opinion, there is no reasonable prospect of the judge’s exercise of his discretion being shown to be wrong. For those reasons we concluded there was no reasonable prospect of the appeal succeeding and accordingly the order of the court is that leave to appeal be refused.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Mackinder involves an application for leave to appeal against the conviction of the applicant, Mr Mackinder, who was found guilty by the District Court of possessing methylamphetamine for sale and unlawful possession of $400. The applicant contends that the trial judge erred in admitting certain evidence tendered by the prosecution, which he argues should have been excluded. The matter was considered by the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia, comprising Doyle CJ, Prior and Mullighan JJ.

The legal issues before the court were whether the trial judge made an error in admitting certain evidence that was challenged by the applicant, and whether this error was such that it could potentially be overturned on appeal. The court needed to consider the trial judge's findings of fact and the exercise of discretion in relation to the admissibility of evidence. Specifically, the court had to determine if there was a reasonable prospect that the trial judge's findings or exercise of discretion could be shown to be in error on appeal.

In its judgment, the Full Court held that the trial judge's findings of fact, which were adverse to the applicant, were not likely to be set aside on appeal. The court also found that even if the evidence had been obtained unlawfully, the trial judge would have exercised his discretion to admit it. The Full Court concluded that there was no reasonable prospect that the appeal would succeed, and therefore, leave to appeal was refused. The court's reasoning was based on the firm establishment of the trial judge's factual findings and the discretionary nature of the decision to admit evidence.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established