Legal Research
Cases
R v Miller

R v Miller

Case [2008] SASC 331 25 November 2008

Appeal

Improper Admission or Rejection of Evidence - General Principles

Claim of Right

Admissibility of Evidence

Res Judicata

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Court of Criminal Appeal)
R v MILLER
[2008] SASC 331
Judgment of The Court of Criminal Appeal
(The Honourable Justice Gray, The Honourable Justice Sulan and The Honourable Justice David)
25 November 2008
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - PROPERTY OFFENCES - ROBBERY
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - PROPERTY OFFENCES - CLAIM OF RIGHT
CRIMINAL LAW - EVIDENCE - CHARACTER AND PRIOR CONVICTIONS - DIRECTIONS TO JURY
CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL - IMPROPER ADMISSION OR REJECTION OF EVIDENCE - GENERAL PRINCIPLES
Appeal against conviction – following jury trial, defendant found guilty of robbery contrary to section 137(1) Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) – whether trial Judge erred in dismissing application for mistrial based on evidence from prosecution witness that appellant had previously been in gaol – whether trial Judge erred in failing to leave defence of claim of right to jury – whether trial Judge erred in admitting evidence supporting motive – whether guilty verdict unsafe and unsatisfactory.
Held, dismissing the appeal: Evidence that defendant had been in gaol was relevant and probative on issue of motive – trial Judge appropriately directed and warned jury about proper use of evidence and against any misuse of this evidence – trial Judge was correct to refuse application for a mistrial – at trial, no evidence to support defence of claim of right was raised – trial Judge was not required to leave defence of claim of right to jury – evidence supporting motive was probative, and was the subject of appropriate and adequate direction by trial Judge - guilty verdict was not unsafe or unsatisfactory.
Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) s 131(5) and s 137(1), referred to.
Alvarez-Pizalla v Western Australia (No 2) [2008] WASCA 105; Barker v The Queen (1983) 153 CLR 338; R v Baxter [1927] SASR 321; R v Bedford (2007) 98 SASR 514; R v Beech (1978) 20 SASR 410; R v Bradshaw (1978) 18 SASR 83; R v C [2000] QCA 385; R v Hannes (2000) 158 FLR 359; R v Hartwick (2005) 14 VR 125; Hoys & Ors v The Queen [2002] WASCA 275; R v Ives [1973] Qd R 128; R v Kanaan (2005) 64 NSWLR 527; R v Martin (2007) 99 SASR 213; Michael v State of Western Australia [2007] WASCA 100; R v Pfitzner (1976) 15 SASR 171; R v Sorlie (1925) 25 SR (NSW) 532; Stoddart (1909) 2 Cr. App. R 217; R v White (1976) 13 SASR 276, considered.

R v MILLER
[2008] SASC 331
Court of Criminal Appeal Gray, Sulan, David JJ
THE COURT

This is an appeal against conviction.[1]
[1] The defendant's application for permission to appeal was referred to this Court as it was said all grounds raised questions of law.
Introduction
The defendant and appellant, Danny Boyd Miller, was charged on information with robbery, contrary to section…

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 Miller

Details

AGLC: R v Miller [2008] SASC 331
Case: [2008] SASC 331
Decision Date: 25 November 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Miller, the defendant appealed against his conviction for robbery, which was determined following a jury trial. The defendant was found guilty of robbing a victim contrary to section 137(1) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA). The appeal raised several issues concerning the trial judge's handling of evidence, including the admission of evidence that the defendant had previously been in gaol, the failure to leave the defence of claim of right to the jury, and the admission of evidence relating to motive. Additionally, it was argued that the verdict was unsafe and unsatisfactory due to the cumulative effect of these errors.

The court examined whether the trial judge erred in dismissing the defendant's application for a mistrial based on the prosecution witness's evidence that the defendant had been in gaol. The court found that the evidence was relevant and probative of the defendant's motive and that the trial judge appropriately directed and warned the jury about the proper use of this evidence. The court also determined that the trial judge was correct to refuse the application for a mistrial, as there was no evidence presented at trial to support a defence of claim of right. Furthermore, the court held that the trial judge was not required to leave the defence of claim of right to the jury, as no such evidence was presented.

The court also assessed whether the trial judge erred in admitting evidence supporting the defendant's motive, concluding that the evidence was probative and that the trial judge had provided appropriate and adequate direction on the matter. Finally, the court addressed the argument that the guilty verdict was unsafe and unsatisfactory. Having rejected all other complaints, the court concluded that there was no basis to suggest that the verdict was unsafe or unsatisfactory, or that a miscarriage of justice had occurred. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as without merit.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the appeal against the defendant's conviction for robbery, finding that the trial judge appropriately managed the evidence presented and that the verdict was safe and satisfactory. The court rejected the defendant's arguments concerning the admission of evidence, the defence of claim of right, and the motive, as well as the argument that the verdict was unsafe and unsatisfactory. The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction stood.

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

Finally, it was argued that, by reason of the earlier complaints, the Court should conclude that the verdict returned was unsafe and unsatisfactory. As this Court has rejected each of the complaints, there is no basis on which it can be suggested that the verdict was unsafe or unsatisfactory, or that a miscarriage of justice has occurred.Conclusion The appeal is without merit. The appeal is dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Citations

AGLC Citation

R v Miller [2008] SASC 331

Cases citing this decision · 0 of 0 shown

No citing cases yet.

Cases cited in this decision · 13 of 13 shown

R v Bradshaw
[2025] QCA 172 Para 13

…k (2005) 14 VR 125 at [158]-[161]; R v Kanaan (2005) 64 NSWLR 527 at [130]-[133]. [4] R v Beech (1978) 20 SASR 410 at 420-423 (White J); R v Bradshaw (1978) 18 SASR 83 at 92 (Bray CJ), at 98-99 (King J); R v Pfitzner (1976) 15 SASR 171 at 197 (Wells J); R v White (1976) 13 SASR 276 at 284 (Hogarth, Zelling, King JJ)…
R v Pfitzner
[2009] NSWSC 1267 Para 13

…t [130]-[133]. [4] R v Beech (1978) 20 SASR 410 at 420-423 (White J); R v Bradshaw (1978) 18 SASR 83 at 92 (Bray CJ), at 98-99 (King J); R v Pfitzner (1976) 15 SASR 171 at 197 (Wells J); R v White (1976) 13 SASR 276 at 284 (Hogarth, Zelling, King JJ).…
Alvarez-Pizalla v The State of Western Australia [No 2]
[2008] WASCA 105 Para 2

…des.[13] [12] Barker v The Queen (1983) 153 CLR 338 at 368-369 (footnotes omitted). [13] Alvarez-Pizalla v Western Australia (No 2) [2008] WASCA 105 at [47]; Hoys & Ors v The Queen [2002] WASCA 275 at [33]. [34], [42]; R v Hannes (2000) 158 FLR 359 at [107]-[112]; R v C [2000] QCA 385 at [39]; R v Ives [1973] Qd R…
R v Martin
[2007] SASC 336 Para 13

…e and negative aspects of the evidence to ensure that only proper use is made by the jury of the evidence.[4] [3] Recent examples include: R v Martin (2007) 99 SASR 213 at [34]-[40]; Michael v State of Western Australia [2007] WASCA 100 at [19]-[23]; R v Hartwick (2005) 14 VR 125 at [158]-[161]; R v Kanaan (2005) 64…
Michael v The State of Western Australia
[2007] WASCA 100 Para 13

…is made by the jury of the evidence.[4] [3] Recent examples include: R v Martin (2007) 99 SASR 213 at [34]-[40]; Michael v State of Western Australia [2007] WASCA 100 at [19]-[23]; R v Hartwick (2005) 14 VR 125 at [158]-[161]; R v Kanaan (2005) 64 NSWLR 527 at [130]-[133]. [4] R v Beech (1978) 20 SASR 410 at 420-42…
R v Hartwick
[2005] VSCA 264 Para 13

…Recent examples include: R v Martin (2007) 99 SASR 213 at [34]-[40]; Michael v State of Western Australia [2007] WASCA 100 at [19]-[23]; R v Hartwick (2005) 14 VR 125 at [158]-[161]; R v Kanaan (2005) 64 NSWLR 527 at [130]-[133]. [4] R v Beech (1978) 20 SASR 410 at 420-423 (White J); R v Bradshaw (1978) 18 SASR 83…
R v Kanaan
[2005] NSWCCA 385 Para 13

…9 SASR 213 at [34]-[40]; Michael v State of Western Australia [2007] WASCA 100 at [19]-[23]; R v Hartwick (2005) 14 VR 125 at [158]-[161]; R v Kanaan (2005) 64 NSWLR 527 at [130]-[133]. [4] R v Beech (1978) 20 SASR 410 at 420-423 (White J); R v Bradshaw (1978) 18 SASR 83 at 92 (Bray CJ), at 98-99 (King J); R v Pfitzne…
R v Sabbah
[2004] NSWCCA 28 Para 20

…the issue for the jury's consideration. This situation is to be contrasted with those that pertained in R v Fuge (2001) 123 ACrimR 310 and R v Sabbah [2004] NSWCCA 28. In those cases there was no direct evidence at all establishing a claim of right and no basis for leaving it to the jury. Vanstone J considered that…
Hoy v The Queen
[2002] WASCA 275 Para 2

…38 at 368-369 (footnotes omitted). [13] Alvarez-Pizalla v Western Australia (No 2) [2008] WASCA 105 at [47]; Hoys & Ors v The Queen [2002] WASCA 275 at [33]. [34], [42]; R v Hannes (2000) 158 FLR 359 at [107]-[112]; R v C [2000] QCA 385 at [39]; R v Ives [1973] Qd R 128.…
R v Hannes
[2000] NSWCCA 503 Para 2

…izalla v Western Australia (No 2) [2008] WASCA 105 at [47]; Hoys & Ors v The Queen [2002] WASCA 275 at [33]. [34], [42]; R v Hannes (2000) 158 FLR 359 at [107]-[112]; R v C [2000] QCA 385 at [39]; R v Ives [1973] Qd R 128.…
R v C
[2000] QCA 385 Para 2

…WASCA 105 at [47]; Hoys & Ors v The Queen [2002] WASCA 275 at [33]. [34], [42]; R v Hannes (2000) 158 FLR 359 at [107]-[112]; R v C [2000] QCA 385 at [39]; R v Ives [1973] Qd R 128.…
Walden v Hensler
[1987] HCA 54 Para 20

…ue that the answers given by the appellant were not framed in terms of a claim "by reference to some supposed operation of the law": Walden v Hensler (1987) 163 CLR 561 at 608 per Gaudron J. However, it would be unrealistic to expect that such claims would always be couched in terms of legal entitlement. Had there be…
Barker v The Queen
[1983] HCA 18 Para 2

…rvations have been made by intermediate courts in Australia from time to time over the ensuing decades.[13] [12] Barker v The Queen (1983) 153 CLR 338 at 368-369 (footnotes omitted). [13] Alvarez-Pizalla v Western Australia (No 2) [2008] WASCA 105 at [47]; Hoys & Ors v The Queen [2002] WASCA 275 at [33]. [34], [42];…

Legislation cited in this decision · 1

Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA)
131(5) 2 mentions (from Para 2)