R v Riny (No 2) - [2018] SADC 133

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v RINY (No 2)
Criminal Trial by Judge Alone
[2018] SADC 133
Reasons for the Verdict of His Honour Judge Chivell
13 December 2018
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON - ACTS INTENDED TO CAUSE OR CAUSING DANGER TO LIFE OR BODILY HARM OR SERIOUS INJURY
Accused charged with aggravated causing harm with intent to cause harm. Identity of the offender the primary issue. Rational inference consistent with innocence not disproved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.
Verdict: not guilty.
Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) s 5AA(1)(c)(i), s 24(1) ; Evidence Act 1929 (SA) s 29; Juries Act 1927 (SA) s 7; R v Pringle [2017] SASCFC 9; R v Kamleh [2003] SASC 269; R v Christie [1914] AC 545; R v Thomas [1970] VR 674; R v Strausz (1977) 17 SASR 197; R v Salahattin [1983] 1 VR 521, referred to.

R v RINY (No 2)
[2018] SADC 133
The Charges

Wol Magot Door and Lual Riny were jointly charged with aggravated causing harm with intent to cause harm, contrary to s 24(1) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA). The charge was of the aggravated offence on the basis that:
(a)the offence was committed while each defendant was in the company of the other and another person;
(b)the victim of the offence was a police officer acting in the course of his official duties.
Mr Door was also charged with aggravated theft of an Apple iPhone, a phone cover, a Commonwealth Bank card, a BankSA Mastercard, a driver’s licence and $20 cash. The charge is of the aggravated offence on the basis that he committed the offence knowing that the victim was a police officer acting in the course of his official duties.
The defendants both elected to be tried by a judge sitting without a jury pursuant to s 7 of the Juries Act 1927 (SA). Mr Door was represented by Mr Charman and Mr Riny by Mr Richter. Mr Pearce QC, with Mr Foundas, appeared for the Director of Public Prosecutions. Both defendants entered pleas of not guilty.
On 28 November 2018, the second day of the trial, Mr Door pleaded guilty to both charges. The allocutus was administered, and he was remanded to a later date for sentence. The trial continued in relation to count 1 against Mr Riny.
The Undisputed Facts
In the early morning of 1 November 2015, V, an off-duty police officer, was walking in Rundle Mall in the Adelaide CBD. He was alone. He had been at a friend’s ‘buck’s night’ earlier in the evening.
V was walking east along the southern side of Rundle Mall when he became aware of three young men of African appearance in front of him. They were jumping up and hitting overhead advertising signs. They were ‘egging each other on’.[1] When one of them jumped up and hit a sign, it was damaged and fell to the…

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 Riny (No 2)

Details

AGLC: R v Riny (No 2) [2018] SADC 133
Case: [2018] SADC 133
Decision Date: 13 December 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Riny (No 2) involved two defendants, Wol Magot Door and Lual Riny, who were jointly charged with aggravated causing harm with intent to cause harm. The defendants were tried by a judge sitting without a jury, and both entered pleas of not guilty. The case against Riny hinged on his identity as one of the attackers, as there was no direct evidence identifying him as such. The prosecution argued that Riny was one of the three men who assaulted an off-duty police officer, V, in Rundle Mall in Adelaide. The CCTV footage of the incident showed three men assaulting V, one of whom was wearing white boots, which were later found in Riny's possession. However, the judge found that the prosecution had failed to disprove beyond reasonable doubt that Riny was not one of the attackers. Riny's alibi, supported by the evidence of two witnesses, suggested that he was at a party in Andrews Farm at the time of the assault. The judge accepted this evidence, finding that Riny could not have left the city after the attack and returned to Andrews Farm until at least 3 a.m. The judge concluded that the competing inference that Riny was not one of the attackers could not be excluded beyond reasonable doubt, and thus Riny was acquitted of the charge.

Orders