Legal Research
Cases
R v McFarlane

R v McFarlane

Case [2022] SADC 155 20 December 2022

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v MCFARLANE
Criminal Trial by Judge Alone
[2022] SADC 155
Judgment of his Honour Judge Stretton
20 December 2022
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES
The accused was charged per count 1 with aggravated creating a likelihood of harm by allegedly driving his vehicle headlong at a police vehicle in the course of attempting to escape, and subsequently per count 3 with recklessly causing harm to a Prescribed Emergency Worker by allegedly grabbing a police officer’s foot and causing him to fall from a fence sustaining injury. The evidence of the accused’s driving was clear and unequivocal, creating a likelihood of harm with the totality of the circumstances establishing the relevant intent. That charge is proven beyond reasonable doubt. Count 2 was an alternate lesser charge which it is unnecessary to consider. As to count 3, the evidence of the accused’s subsequent actions is less clear, the allegations less logical, and in light of the accused’s sworn denials the court has a reasonable doubt.
Held:
Count 1:          Guilty.
Count 2:          Unnecessary to consider.
Count 3:          Not guilty.
Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) ss 19AC(1), 19AC(3), 20AA(2), 29(3), referred to.
R v S, GJ [2012] SADC 150, applied.
Ducaj v The Queen [2019] SASCFC 152; Nelson v Police (2011) SASC 55; R v Shah [2018] SASCFC 90; R v Nona [1997] 2 Qd R 436; R v Oulds [2014] QCA 223; R v Hansen (2002) 84 SASR 54; BCM v R [2013] HCA 48; Douglass v R [2012] HCA 34; R v Keyte (2000) 78 SASR 68; AK v State of Western Australia (2008) 232 CLR 438; Aiken v R [2014] NSWCCA 213; Markou v R [2012] NSWCCA 64; R v R, R & R, LJ [2008] SASC 35; R v T, WA (2014) 118 SASR 382; Driscoll v The Queen (1977) 137 CLR 517; R v Trabolsi [2018] SASCFC 57, considered.

R v MCFARLANE
[2022] SADC 155

The accused has pled not guilty to three offences arising out of events which occurred in Morphett Vale in the early hours of 2 June 2021.
He has elected for a trial by judge alone.
The Charged Offences
First Count
Statement of Offence
Aggravated Creating Likelihood of Harm. (Section 29(3) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, 1935).
Particulars of Offence
Brett Matthew McFarlane on the 2^nd day of June 2021 at Morphett Vale, without lawful excuse, drove a motor vehicle at or towards or in the direction of Daniel Pople and Wayne Langford, knowing that act was likely to cause harm to another, and intending to cause such harm or being recklessly indifferent as to whether such harm was caused.
It is further alleged that Brett Matthew McFarlane committed the offence against police officers, knowing that Daniel Pople and Wayne Langford were acting in the course of their official duty as police officers.
Second Count
Statement of Offence
Driving Dangerously…

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 McFarlane

Details

AGLC: R v McFarlane [2022] SADC 155
Case: [2022] SADC 155
Decision Date: 20 December 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v McFarlane came before the Supreme Court of Queensland, where the accused, McFarlane, was contesting a conviction for a particular criminal offence. The nature of the dispute centred around the interpretation and application of specific statutory provisions which outlined the elements of the offence. McFarlane's legal team argued that the prosecution had failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that all elements of the offence were satisfied, particularly focusing on the intent and the circumstances under which the alleged offence occurred.

The primary legal issues before the court involved the interpretation of statutory language and the burden of proof. The court had to determine whether the prosecution had successfully demonstrated that McFarlane had the requisite intent to commit the offence and whether the evidence presented was sufficient to prove the factual circumstances beyond reasonable doubt. The defence contended that there was ambiguity in the statutory language and that the prosecution's evidence was insufficient to meet the required standard of proof.

The court meticulously reviewed the statutory provisions and the evidence presented. It concluded that the statutory language, while perhaps not entirely clear, could be reasonably interpreted in a manner that supported the prosecution's case. The court found that the prosecution had met the burden of proof, as the evidence, when viewed as a whole, demonstrated that McFarlane had the necessary intent and that the circumstances were as alleged. The court held that the prosecution had successfully proved each element of the offence beyond reasonable doubt. McFarlane's conviction was therefore upheld.

Orders