R v McGee

In the Supreme Court of South Australia, the case of R v McGee involved a challenge to the validity of a charge of conspiracy to attempt to pervert the course of justice. The applicant, McGee, argued that the offence charged was not recognised under the law of South Australia, contending that the appropriate charge should have been conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. The central issue before the court was whether there exists an offence of an attempt to pervert the course of justice and if there is an offence of perverting the course of justice as distinct from it. The court was tasked with determining the validity of the charge, and whether the offence of conspiracy to do an unlawful act could include an attempt to commit an offence that is not independently recognised.

The court examined the provisions of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA), specifically Section 256(1), which pertains to the offence of attempt to pervert the course of justice. It was noted that the act of perverting the course of justice could indeed be considered a crime at common law or under statute, and that conspiracy to commit such an offence could be valid. The court found that the charge of conspiracy to attempt to pervert the course of justice was appropriately framed under the statute and that there is a recognised offence of attempt to pervert the course of justice in South Australia. Consequently, the application to quash the information was dismissed, affirming the validity of the charge.

The reasoning of the court hinged on the interpretation of statutory provisions and the established jurisprudence on the nature of conspiracy and attempts. The court concluded that the statutory offence of attempt to pervert the course of justice was correctly applied and that the charge against McGee was valid. The offence of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice was distinguished from the offence of attempt, and the court upheld the distinction, finding that the charge against McGee was appropriately framed under the statute. The court's decision affirmed the prosecutorial authority to charge individuals with conspiracy to attempt to pervert the course of justice, provided that the act itself is a recognised offence under the law.

The final orders of the court were that the application to quash the information was dismissed, and the charge against the applicant was upheld as valid. The court's decision confirmed that the offence of attempt to pervert the course of justice is recognised in South Australia, and that the charge of conspiracy to attempt to commit such an offence is appropriately framed under the relevant statute.