R v Matthews - [2005] SASC 91

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Court of Criminal Appeal)
R v MATTHEWS
Judgment of The Court of Criminal Appeal
(The Honourable Chief Justice Doyle, The Honourable Justice Duggan and The Honourable Justice Vanstone)
15 March 2005
CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION
Appeal against conviction - whether trial judge erred in not leaving alternative verdict of common assault - appeal dismissed.
Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA), s 270B, s 56, s 75, referred to.
Benbolt v The Queen (1993) 60 SASR 7; Gilbert v The Queen (2000) 201 CLR 414; R v Perdikoyiannis (2003) 86 SASR 262; R v Salmon [1969] SASR 76; W, JP v Police [2005] SASC 87, considered.

R v MATTHEWS
[2005] SASC 91
Court of Criminal Appeal: Doyle CJ, Duggan and Vanstone JJ

DOYLE CJ: I would dismiss the appeal against conviction. I agree with the reasons given by Vanstone J. There is nothing that I wish to add.
DUGGAN J. In my view this appeal should be dismissed. I agree with the reasons given by Vanstone J.
VANSTONE J: Stephen Leslie Matthews was convicted of indecent assault in the District Court after a trial by jury. He appeals against that conviction on one ground only, being that a miscarriage of justice arose by reason of the failure of the learned trial judge to leave to the jury an alternative verdict of common assault.
The information upon which the appellant was tried contained two charges. The first count was assault with intent to rape, contrary to s 270B Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (“the Act”) and the second count was indecent assault contrary to s 56 of the Act. It was made clear by the prosecutor when the case was opened to the jury that count 2 was an alternative to count 1. There was an acquittal on the first count and a unanimous verdict of guilty upon count 2.
The evidence led by the prosecution can be summarised briefly. As at the time of trial the complainant was 36 years of age. On the night of the incident she went alone to an hotel in the Taperoo area for the purpose of playing on poker machines. There she met the appellant, who was previously not known to her. They struck up an acquaintanceship and spoke to each other from time to time during the evening while they both used the machines. During the night the appellant bought at least one drink for the complainant and he also advanced her small sums of money when she had lost her own. Later on the complainant accepted the appellant’s offer to take her home in his motor car. However, during the journey the appellant veered away from the route to her home, saying he needed to go to his own residence because he had run out of cigarettes.
On arrival at his home he told her that she might as well come inside and she did so. Once…

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 Matthews

Details

AGLC: R v Matthews [2005] SASC 91
Case: [2005] SASC 91
Decision Date: 15 March 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Matthews involved an appeal against a conviction for assault occasioning actual bodily harm, where the defendant, Matthews, argued that the trial judge had erred in not providing the jury with the option of an alternative verdict of common assault. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of the state. The defendant, Matthews, was found guilty of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, but he contested this decision on the grounds that the trial judge should have allowed the jury to consider a lesser included offence, namely common assault.

The legal issue before the court was whether the trial judge was correct in not leaving the alternative verdict of common assault to the jury. This involved a consideration of the principles governing the inclusion of alternative verdicts in criminal trials, and whether, in the circumstances of this case, such an alternative should have been offered. The court was required to assess whether the evidence supported a conviction for the lesser offence, and whether leaving such a verdict was necessary to ensure a fair trial.

The court held that there was no error in the trial judge's decision not to leave the alternative verdict of common assault to the jury. The court found that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for assault occasioning actual bodily harm and that the jury had been properly directed on the law relating to this offence. The court concluded that it was not necessary to leave an alternative verdict in this case, as the evidence clearly supported the more serious charge. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal against conviction was dismissed, and the conviction for assault occasioning actual bodily harm was upheld. The defendant's appeal was unsuccessful, and he remained convicted as per the original judgment.

Orders