R v Martin

Case [2007] SASC 336

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA

(Court of Criminal Appeal)

R v MARTIN

[2007] SASC 336

Judgment of The Court of Criminal Appeal

(The Honourable Justice Gray, The Honourable Justice Sulan and The Honourable Justice David)

18 September 2007

CRIMINAL LAW - GENERAL MATTERS - CRIMINAL LIABILITY AND CAPACITY - DEFENCE MATTERS - SELF-DEFENCE AND OTHER FORMS OF DEFENCE

CRIMINAL LAW - EVIDENCE - JUDICIAL DISCRETION TO ADMIT OR EXCLUDE EVIDENCE - EVIDENCE UNFAIR TO ADMIT OR IMPROPERLY OBTAINED - GENERALLY

CRIMINAL LAW - EVIDENCE - MATTERS RELATING TO PROOF - BURDEN OF PROOF - DIRECTION TO JURY

CRIMINAL LAW - JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT - SENTENCE

Appeal against conviction and sentence - appellant convicted by jury of two counts of endangering life - appellant sentenced to 5 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 3 years - police entered the appellant's premises pursuant to a general search warrant - rapid force entry method used - appellant fired two warning shots - statutory defence of self-defence raised - evidence given that the appellant believed that forced entry was a home invasion - section 15B of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) provides that the requirement of reasonable proportionality does not imply that the force used by the defendant cannot exceed the force used against him or her - section 15C of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act provides that the requirement of reasonable proportionality does not apply where, inter alia, a defendant genuinely believes the victim to be committing a home invasion and the victim is not a police officer acting in the course of his or her duties - police search of the appellant's premises found traces of drug methylamphetamine - materials associated with the manufacture of methylamphetamine seized - during trial Crown led evidence of seized items as probative of a motive for the appellant to violently resist police - appellant applied for a voir dire to challenge lawfulness of execution of general search warrant - application dismissed - whether trial Judge erred in declining voir dire - whether trial Judge erred in ruling that the lawfulness of the police entry was a matter for the jury - whether trial Judge erred in ruling that the issue of whether the police officers were acting in the course of their duties was a matter for the jury - whether trial Judge erred in permitting the Crown to lead evidence of seized items for the purpose of establishing motive - whether the trial Judge erred in his directions in respect of the requirement of section 15B - whether the trial Judge erred in his directions concerning the burden of proof in relation to self-defence - whether the head sentence and non-parole period imposed were manifestly excessive - Held: appeal against conviction and sentence dismissed - it is within the discretion of the trial Judge whether or not to hold a voir dire hearing - no proper or adequate material placed before the court to justify a voir…

Continue reading R v Martin

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Martin [2007] SASC 336
Case
[2007] SASC 336
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Martin, the appellant, Martin, was convicted by a jury of two counts of endangering life, following an incident in which he fired warning shots at police officers who had entered his premises pursuant to a general search warrant. Martin was sentenced to 5 years’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 3 years. Martin appealed against both his conviction and sentence, raising several grounds of appeal. The appeal centred on the admissibility of evidence, the trial judge's directions to the jury, and the appropriateness of the sentence imposed.

The legal issues before the court were whether the trial judge erred in declining to hold a voir dire, in ruling that the lawfulness of the police entry was a matter for the jury, in permitting the Crown to lead evidence of seized items to establish motive, and in his directions concerning the requirement of reasonable proportionality and the burden of proof in relation to self-defence. The court also considered whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive.

The court held that the trial judge's discretion to hold a voir dire was not abused, as no proper or adequate material was placed before the court to justify such a hearing. The court found that the evidence of the seized items was relevant and admissible, as it was probative of Martin's intention and belief concerning the nature of the threat. The court also held that the trial judge's directions to the jury were appropriate, and that the sentence imposed was within the trial judge's sentencing discretion. Accordingly, the appeals against conviction and sentence were dismissed.

The court found that the evidence of the seized items was relevant and admissible, and that the trial judge's directions to the jury were appropriate. The court also held that the sentence imposed was within the trial judge's sentencing discretion, and that no miscarriage of justice had occurred. The appeals against conviction and sentence were therefore dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

The defendant at trial before the jury did not challenge the lawfulness of the search. Accordingly, the issue was not in fact left to the jury. There is no evidential basis on which to apprehend that the search was unlawful. There has been no miscarriage of justice occasioned by the refusal to conduct a voir dire hearing.The Relevance of Evidence as to Motive A further ground of appeal challenged the trial Judge’s ruling that evidence of traces of the drug methylamphetamine, and items sometimes associated with the production or manufacture of that drug, found in the appellant’s home, were relevant and admissible items of evidence. On the day following the trial Judge’s ruling on the voir dire application, the appellant learned that the prosecution intended to lead evidence in the trial that certain items seized from his house had been forensically tested, revealing the presence of traces of methylamphetamine. Items that could be used in the manufacture of that drug were also seized. The prosecution alleged that the evidence was relevant and admissible on the basis that it was probative of a motive for the appellant to violently resist the entry of the police. The appellant’s counsel argued for the exclusion of that physical evidence on the basis that its prejudicial value exceeded its probative value. The trial Judge ruled that the evidence was relevant and admissible:In my view, the evidence is relevant and admissible. Insofar as there might be any suggestion of prejudicial effect, then I am of the view that it can be catered for by appropriate directions to the jury, so I will allow the evidence. On the appeal, counsel for the appellant submitted that the admission of the evidence for the purposes of establishing motive was flawed. It was said that the evidence was not properly admissible on that basis. It was complained that to do so invited improper speculation about the appellant’s background and imputed bad character. Coupled with this submission was a complaint that the directions given by the trial Judge during the summing up were inadequate and insufficient to deal with the unfair prejudice flowing to the appellant. In that respect the trial Judge directed:Ladies and gentlemen, in the course of the trial I gave you some directions about the evidence of what was found and what was not found in the course of the search of the [appellant’s] house. You have been told that the police entered the premises because of a suspicion that there was a clandestine drug laboratory in place there. We know that the police did not find any such laboratory.To begin with, the fact that there was a suspicion of this nature is totally irrelevant to the question of whether the [appellant] is guilty of any of these offences with which he has been charged. The only reason why it was mentioned in the case was as part of the history, to explain why the police were there in the first place. It would have been quite artificial to present the case to you without any reference to the reason for the police raid. That having been said, I direct you not to draw any inference adverse to the [appellant] by reason of that suspicion. To do so would be quite illogical but I direct you, as a matter of law, that you cannot draw any such adverse inference against the [appellant].Secondly, some items were found which, according to the evidence, could be used to make methylamphetamine and, furthermore, traces of that drug were found. I am referring now to the evidence concerning the glassware, the magnesium sulphate, or Epsom salts found with the mortar and pestle, the magnesium sulphate in the coffee grinder, the pseudoephedrine on the swab used on the coffee grinder and the methylamphetamine from the pan of the scales. Again I direct you that the mere fact that such items were found cannot lead you to view the [appellant] in an adverse way. The only relevance of that evidence is in deciding whether you accept the prosecution argument that the presence of these items provided a motive for the conduct of the [appellant] as alleged by the prosecution.The prosecution need not prove motive and it is not an element of the offences. However, according to the prosecution argument, the [appellant] well knew it was the police at the door and he did not want them searching the premises and finding these items, hence his actions to prevent them from entering the premises.The [appellant] has given his explanation and has admitted taking methylamphetamine for a specific purpose. I repeat: no adverse inference as to the general behaviour of the [appellant] is to be drawn from this evidence. Its relevance is confined purely to the question of motive, and whether or not such a motive existed is a matter for you.

Decision

Reasons for decision

GRAY J DAVID J (dissent)
In these circumstances no error has been demonstrated in the approach taken by the trial Judge or in the findings that he has made. On the basis of these findings it was conceded that the sentence imposed was well within the Judge’s sentencing discretion. This concession was correctly made. Conclusion The applicant should be granted leave to appeal as sought. However, the appeals against conviction and sentence should be dismissed. SULAN J: I would dismiss the appeals against conviction and sentence. I agree with the reasons of Gray J. I agree that the appeal should be dismissed for the reasons given by Gray J.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: GRAY J,

Full text does not contain this section.