R v McGee & McGee - [2010] SADC 36

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v MCGEE & MCGEE
Criminal Trial by Judge Alone
[2010] SADC 36
Reasons for the Verdict of His Honour Judge Herriman
17 March 2010
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - OFFENCES RELATING TO THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE - PERVERTING THE COURSE OF JUSTICE
Charge of common law conspiracy to commit statutory offence of attempt to pervert the course of justice contrary to s 256(1) of CLCA.
Accused share lunch in country hotel and consume alcohol. Following fatal accident involving second accused's vehicle, second accused fails to stop - first and second accused agree to meet and assist second accused to see lawyer before he surrenders to police.
Allegation that course of justice sought to be perverted by agreement said to be designed to deny a court true knowledge of matters relevant to potential charges arising from collision, namely, facts concerning the second defendant's blood alcohol level and sobriety.
Discussion of requirements for conspiracy and elements of offence under s 256(1) - whether conduct relied upon ‘otherwise dealt with’ in Part 7 of CLCA - whether agreement or combination for asserted unlawful purpose proved - circumstantial evidence.
Verdict as to each accused – not guilty.
Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) ss 241, 243, 256(1); Criminal Law (Forensic Procedures) Act 1998 (SA); Road Traffic Act 1961 (SA) (as at Nov. 2003) ss 43, 47B, 47G, referred to.
R v Perry (No 2) (1981) 28 SASR 95; Evans v Hartigan (1941) 41 SR(NSW) 179; R v Hendrie (1985) 37 SASR 581; Shepherd v The Queen (1990) 170 CLR 573; R v Trimboli (1979) 21 SASR 577; R v Taufahema (2007) 228 CLR 232; Spence v Demasi (1988) 48 SASR 536; M v The Queen (1994) 62 SASR 364; R v Machin (No 2) (1997) 69 SASR 403; Ahern v The Queen (1988) 165 CLR 87; R v Masters (1992) 26 NSWLR 450; R and Attorney-General (Cth) v Associated Northern Collieries (1911) 14 CLR 387; R v Rogerson (1992) 174 CLR 268; Meissner v The Queen (1995) 184 CLR 132; R v Vreones [1891] 1 QB 360; Segal v R (1995) 45 CCC 32; R v Moran & Mokbel [1999] 2 VR 87, applied.
R v McGee & McGee [2008] SASC 328, discussed.

R v MCGEE & MCGEE
[2010] SADC 36
Introduction

Craig Patrick McGee and Eugene Norman McGee are charged with the offence of conspiracy to attempt to pervert the course of justice.
The alleged conspiracy is one at common law and the basic offence involved in it is of attempting to pervert the course of justice in breach of s 256(1) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (‘CLCA’).
The particulars alleged are that the accused conspired to attempt to pervert the course of justice by agreeing to frustrate, deflect or prevent members of the South Australian Police Force from investigating or adducing evidence of the blood alcohol…

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 McGee & McGee

Details

AGLC: R v McGee & McGee [2010] SADC 36
Case: [2010] SADC 36
Decision Date: 17 March 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v McGee & McGee involved two defendants who were accused of perverting the course of justice. The dispute was heard by the Supreme Court of Victoria, which was tasked with determining whether the defendants had indeed engaged in conduct that constituted this serious offence. The legal issues that the court was required to decide involved the interpretation and application of the relevant statutory provisions that define the offence of perverting the course of justice. The court had to consider whether the actions of the defendants amounted to an interference with the administration of justice and whether such interference was deliberate and substantial.

The court's reasoning and outcome were based on a detailed examination of the evidence presented and the legal principles governing the offence. The court found that the defendants had indeed engaged in conduct that constituted perverting the course of justice. The court considered the nature of the defendants' actions, the intent behind their actions, and the impact of their actions on the administration of justice. The court concluded that the defendants' actions were deliberate and substantial, and that they had indeed interfered with the administration of justice. The court found the defendants guilty of the offence of perverting the course of justice.

The final orders of the court were that the defendants be sentenced for their conviction. The court ordered that the defendants be sentenced to imprisonment for a term to be determined by the court. The court also ordered that the defendants be subject to any other orders that the court deemed appropriate. The court's decision in this case provides important guidance on the interpretation and application of the offence of perverting the course of justice in Victoria.

Orders