Legal Research
Cases
R v Murphy

R v Murphy

Case [2013] SADC 102 2 August 2013

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v MURPHY
Criminal Trial by Judge Alone
[2013] SADC 102
Reasons for the Verdict of His Honour Judge Slattery
2 August 2013
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON
Trial by Judge sitting without a jury - accused charged with aggravated causing harm with intent to cause harm – prosecution did not call the victim to give evidence – circumstantial evidence used to draw inferences of guilt, and to exclude any reasonable hypothesis other than guilt – no case to answer submission put forward by defendant – defendant claims the victim inflicted the wounds upon herself.
Verdict: Guilty.
Cross on Evidence 8th Australian Edition (J.D. Heydon) Chapter 19 paragraphs [37001], [37060]; Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) s24(1)(b); Juries Act 1927 (SA) s7; Evidence Act 1929 (SA) s34P(4), referred to.
Douglass v R [2012] HCA 34 ; R v Keyte (2000) 78 SASR 68; Hargraves v R [2011] HCA 44 ; Ratten v R [1972] AC 378 (PC); R v Andrews [1987] AC 281 ; Mills v R [1995] 3 All ER 865 ; R v Carnall [1995] Crim LR 944 (CA); R v Ria [1994] 2 NZLR 212; May v O’Sullivan (1955) 92 CLR 654; Zanetti v Hill (1962) 108 CLR 433; R v Bilick (1984) 36 SASR 321 ; Haw Tua Tau v Public Prosecutor [1982] AC 136 ; R v Trotter (1979) 22 SASR 64; R v Zainudin [2012] SASCFC 133; Tovehead Pty Ltd v Freeman (2003) 175 FLR 311, applied.
Tobi v Nicholas (1987) 86 Cr App R 323; Concrete Constructions Pty Ltd v Plumbers & Gasfitters Employees’ Union of Australia (No 2) (1987) 15 FCR 64; Mills v R [1995] 3 All ER 865 ; R v Glover [1991] Crim LR 48 (CA); R v Carnall [1995] Crim LR 944 (CA); R v Ria [1994] 2 NZLR 212; R v Lawson [1998] Crim LR 883; Edwards v DPP [1992] Crim LR 576 (DC of QBD) ; R v Pahuja (No 2) (1989) 50 SASR 551 ; R v Kilby (1973) 129 CLR 460 ; R v Green [2001] SASC 25; R v Knight (1966) 50 Cr App R 122, discussed.
R v Hart [2004] SASC 363, considered.

R v MURPHY
[2013] SADC 102
Criminal trial by Judge alone
INTRODUCTION
1 The accused Shaun Jabangardi Murphy (Murphy) is charged on an Information dated 1 January 2013 with one count of aggravated causing harm with intent to cause harm contrary to s24(1)(b) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (CLCA).
2 The alleged offence is detailed in the Information as follows:-
“Statement of Offence
Aggravated causing harm with intent to cause harm. (Section 24(1)(b) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, 1935).
Particulars of Offence
Shaun Jabangardi Murphy on the 3^rd day of April 2012 at Elizabeth, caused harm to Daylene Kamara Miller, intending to cause her harm.
It is further alleged that…

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 Murphy

Details

AGLC: R v Murphy [2013] SADC 102
Case: [2013] SADC 102
Decision Date: 2 August 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Murphy before the Court was a criminal proceeding where the defendant, Murphy, was accused of aggravated causing harm with intent to cause harm. The trial was conducted by a judge sitting without a jury. The prosecution presented a case relying on circumstantial evidence to establish the defendant's guilt, as they did not call the victim to testify. The defendant argued that the injuries sustained by the victim were self-inflicted and sought to have the charges dismissed by raising a no case to answer submission.

The primary legal issue the court had to address was whether the prosecution had sufficiently proven the charges against Murphy beyond reasonable doubt using circumstantial evidence. The court also had to consider whether the evidence provided by the prosecution excluded any reasonable hypothesis other than guilt. The defendant's argument that the victim inflicted the wounds upon herself was also a critical issue for the court to evaluate.

In determining the sufficiency of the evidence, the court examined the totality of the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution. The court found that the evidence provided a strong inference of guilt, as it excluded any reasonable hypothesis other than the defendant's involvement in the offence. The court rejected the defendant's assertion that the victim had self-inflicted the injuries, concluding that the evidence supported the prosecution's case. The no case to answer submission was dismissed, and the defendant was found guilty as charged.

The final orders of the court were that Murphy be convicted of aggravated causing harm with intent to cause harm and that the case be remanded for sentencing. The court provided detailed reasons for its findings, emphasising the weight of the circumstantial evidence and the court's confidence in the exclusion of any reasonable doubt regarding the defendant's guilt.

Orders