R v MARDON - [2015] SADC 78

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v MARDON
Criminal Trial by Judge Alone
[2015] SADC 78
Reasons for the Verdicts of His Honour Judge Soulio
22 May 2015
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON
Trial by judge alone - Accused charged with 2 counts of theft, 3 counts of serious criminal trespass in a place of residence, 3 counts of attempted create risk of harm - accused contaminated milk and apple juice in complainant's fridge with weed killer - accused denied he did so with the intention of causing harm to the complainant or his family.
Verdicts - Guilty all counts
Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 SA) ss 29, 134, 170, 171, 270; Juries Act 1927 (SA) 7, referred to.
Britten v Alpogut [1987] VR 929; R v Irwin (2006) 94 SASR 480; R v P, NJ [2003] SASC 308; R v Collingridge (1976) 16 SASR 117; Haughton v Smith [1975] AC 476; Kristo v The Queen (1989) 39 A Crim R 86; R v Finnigan (No.2), considered.

R v MARDON
[2015] SADC 78
Background

The complainant, Mr Anthonysz, and the accused knew each other as members of a Jehovah’s Witness congregation of Crafers. The complainant is an elder of that congregation.
In 2010 the complainant was a member of a committee of three elders responsible for a decision to excommunicate the accused from the congregation. The prosecution alleged that between 31 March 2011 and 26 October 2011 the accused was unlawfully in possession of a key to the complainant’s house (Count 1), and that on 16 August 2011 (Counts 2-3), between 15 October 2011 and 19 October 2011 (Counts 4-5), and on 25 October 2011 (Counts 6-7), the accused entered the complainant’s house and put glyphosate, a type of weed killer, into drink containers inside the complainant’s refrigerator. The prosecution also alleged that the accused stole personal documents belonging to the complainant (Count 8). The accused pleaded guilty to the charges of theft (Counts 1 and 8) at the commencement of the trial.
The accused admitted that he entered the complainant’s house as a trespasser, and that he inserted glyphosate into milk and apple juice containers inside the complainant’s refrigerator, but denied that he did so with the intention of causing harm to the complainant or his family.
He elected for trial by judge alone pursuant to s 7 of the Juries Act 1927.
The Charges
The accused was charged on Information with eight separate offences, namely:
Count One Theft (s 134 of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935) (‘CLCA’).
The particulars alleged are that:
The accused between the 31^st day of March 2011 and the 28^th day of October 2011 at Stirling, dishonestly dealt with property, namely a house key, without the consent of the owner Ben Anthonysz, intending to deprive the owner of that property or to make a serious encroachment on the owner’s proprietary rights.
The accused pleaded guilty to Count 1 on 23…

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 MARDON

Details

AGLC: R v Mardon [2015] SADC 78
Case: [2015] SADC 78
Decision Date: 22 May 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Mardon involved the accused, who was charged with two counts of theft, three counts of serious criminal trespass in a place of residence, and three counts of attempted to create a risk of harm. The accused was alleged to have contaminated milk and apple juice in the complainant's fridge with weed killer. The accused denied any intention to cause harm to the complainant or his family. The trial was conducted before a judge sitting alone in the relevant court.

The primary legal issues before the court were the interpretation of the charges and the intention behind the accused's actions. Specifically, the court needed to determine whether the accused's actions constituted the offences as charged, and whether the accused had the requisite intent to cause harm. The court also had to consider the seriousness of the trespass and the potential harm that could have resulted from the contamination of the milk and apple juice.

The court found the accused guilty on all counts. The reasoning of the court focused on the nature of the actions taken by the accused, which were considered to be deliberate and harmful. The court found that the accused had trespassed on the complainant's property and contaminated food that was likely to be consumed, thereby creating a significant risk of harm. The court concluded that the accused's actions demonstrated a reckless disregard for the safety and well-being of the complainant and his family, which was sufficient to establish the intent required for the offences of attempted to create a risk of harm.

The court ordered the accused to be punished according to the severity of the offences, taking into account the gravity of the trespass and the potential for harm caused by the contamination. The specific details of the punishment were not outlined in the summary provided.

Orders