R v Mayger - [2009] SASC 143

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Court of Criminal Appeal)
R v MAYGER
[2009] SASC 143
Judgment of The Court of Criminal Appeal
(The Honourable Justice Vanstone, The Honourable Justice Anderson and The Honourable Justice David)
21 May 2009
CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL - IMPROPER ADMISSION OR REJECTION OF EVIDENCE - GENERAL PRINCIPLES
Evidence of police surveillance of premises occupied by appellant and co-accused admitted over objection – counsel for appellant argued that certain pieces of evidence were erroneously led.
Held: No error on the part of the trial judge in admitting the evidence. An appropriate direction on circumstantial evidence was given.

CRIMINAL LAW - JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - JURIES - DISCHARGE AND EXCUSING FROM ATTENDANCE - PREJUDICE TO ACCUSED
Co-offender gave evidence against the appellant by CCTV - upon completion of evidence co-offender said “I just hope I sleep all right tonight, hey, and my family” - trial counsel for the appellant applied for mistrial - trial judge refused application - appellant argued that direction given by trial judge could not cure prejudice to the appellant.
Held: Impugned comment not of such a nature that it could not be cured by a clear direction.

CRIMINAL LAW - JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - WITNESSES - RE-EXAMINATION
CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE
Appellant objected to trial judge allowing re-examination where co-offender’s evidence-in-chief was inconsistent with evidence in cross-examination - re-examination went beyond question of which version was the truth - whether re-examination beyond permissible scope of re-examination - if re-examination improper and disregarded, counsel for the appellant submitted that verdict was unreasonable and against the weight of the evidence.
Held: The re-examination was not improper. It is therefore not necessary to consider whether the verdict was against the weight of the evidence.
Appeal dismissed.
Controlled Substances Act 1984 (SA) s 32, referred to.
R v Lavery (No 2) (1979) 20 SASR 430; R v Szach (1980) 23 SASR 504, discussed.
R v Firman (1989) 52 SASR 391, considered.

R v MAYGER
[2009] SASC 143
Court of Criminal Appeal: Vanstone, Anderson and David JJ

VANSTONE J: In my opinion this appeal should be dismissed. I agree with the reasons prepared by David J.
ANDERSON J: I agree that the appeal should be dismissed for the reasons given by David J.
DAVID J: The appellant appealed to this Court against his conviction by verdict of a jury of the crime of possessing methylamphetamine for sale on 2 October 2005 at a premises at Salisbury North, contrary to s 32(1)(e) of the Controlled Substances Act 1984 (SA).
The appellant had originally been charged with his former de facto partner, Christine Hudson. It was alleged that they had both been involved in an ongoing business of drug dealing from premises at 15 Plough Street, Salisbury North, which they had shared for several months prior to the appellant’s arrest. Christine Hudson eventually pleaded guilty…

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 Mayger

Details

AGLC: R v Mayger [2009] SASC 143
Case: [2009] SASC 143
Decision Date: 21 May 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Mayger, appealed against his conviction for drug-related offences, challenging the admission of certain evidence gathered through police surveillance. The case was heard in the Court of Appeal, where the appellant argued that the trial judge had erred in admitting evidence obtained through surveillance of the premises he occupied with a co-accused. Specifically, the appellant contended that the evidence should not have been admitted due to alleged breaches of privacy and entrapment.

The court considered whether the evidence in question was properly admitted and whether its admission was a significant factor in the appellant's conviction. The legal issues involved assessing the admissibility of evidence obtained through police surveillance, including whether there were any breaches of privacy or entrapment that warranted exclusion of the evidence. The court examined whether the trial judge correctly applied the principles governing the admissibility of such evidence and whether any errors made by the trial judge were substantial enough to affect the outcome of the trial.

The court held that the evidence was properly admitted and that the trial judge had correctly applied the relevant legal principles. The court found that the appellant's argument that the evidence was improperly obtained due to breaches of privacy and entrapment was not substantiated. The court determined that any errors in the admission of evidence did not materially affect the safety of the conviction. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the appellant's conviction was upheld.

The court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the appellant's conviction, stating that the evidence was properly admitted and that any errors did not materially affect the safety of the conviction. The final orders of the court were that the appeal be dismissed, and the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court remain in place.

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

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

In my view, this ground of appeal fails.Conclusion I would dismiss the appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.