R v Rowland No. Sccrm-00-245 - [2000] SASC 460

R v ROWLAND
[2000] SASC 460

Court of Criminal Appeal: Doyle CJ, Olsson and Bleby J (Ex tempore)

1................ DOYLE CJ:..... I would dismiss the appeal. I agree with the reasons given by Bleby J.

2................ OLSSON J:...... I also agree.

3................ BLEBY J:........ This appeal raises the issue of whether a judge of the District Court, sitting at Mount Gambier, correctly exercised his discretion to defer sentencing the appellant until the appellant had been tried in the Magistrates Court for other offences.

The appellant pleaded guilty in the District Court on 5 October 2000 to two counts of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The offences occurred on 17 March 2000. A disputed facts hearing occurred in respect of these offences. On 16 November 2000 the District Court judge made findings about the circumstances of each assault, and at the request of the prosecutor, remanded the appellant on bail to the next sessions of the District Court sitting at Mount Gambier.
The reasons advanced for the remand by the prosecutor were to enable other criminal proceedings pending in the Magistrates Court to be completed. The charges before the Magistrates Court related to assaults alleged to have taken place seven days before the offences which were before the District Court judge. The matters pending in the Magistrates Court are two alleged offences of assault occasioning actual bodily harm.
The prosecutor submitted that the matter in the Magistrates Court should be dealt with first, before the District Court judge sentenced the appellant on the charges before him. She referred to the appellant’s extensive criminal history, which includes many offences of violence dating back to the 1970s, although declining in frequency in more recent years. On this basis, it was argued that it would be unrealistic to sentence the appellant on the District Court offences if it later turned out that the appellant was guilty of similar offences which were committed seven days earlier.
Defence counsel argued that the appellant was entitled to be sentenced in a timely fashion, and should not have to endure the uncertainty which would follow from deferring sentence until the Magistrates Court proceedings were dealt with. The District Court judge was told that the Magistrates Court trial had been listed for 29 January 2001. The judge acknowledged the delay which had occurred in bringing the matters in the Magistrates Court to trial, caused in part, it seems, by a desire expressed in the Magistrates Court to await the outcome of the District Court proceedings. As I have said, the judge ordered that the sentencing of the appellant for the matters before him would be adjourned until the next session of the District Court sitting at Mount Gambier. He gave liberty to apply should any matters arise that needed to be brought to his Honour’s attention.
It is the order of adjournment that is the subject of this appeal.
The appellant claims that a right of appeal is conferred by s 352(1)(a)(iii) of the Criminal Law Consolidation…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Rowland No. Sccrm-00-245 and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2000] SASC 460
Decision Date: 15 December 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Rowland, the appellant appealed against the decision of the District Court to defer sentencing until the appellant had been tried for other offences in the Magistrates Court. The appeal was heard by the Court of Criminal Appeal, with Doyle CJ, Olsson, and Bleby J presiding. The central issue before the court was whether the District Court judge had properly exercised his discretion to adjourn the sentencing proceedings. The appellant argued that he was entitled to be sentenced in a timely fashion, and that the delay caused by the adjournment was unreasonable. The prosecutor, on the other hand, argued that it was appropriate to deal with the Magistrates Court charges first, as they related to similar offences that had occurred just days before the District Court charges.

The court considered the arguments from both sides and examined the relevant legal provisions. The District Court has the power to adjourn proceedings as necessary, and the court must consider the relevant factors in exercising this discretion. The court found that the District Court judge had appropriately considered the arguments presented by both the prosecution and defence, and had exercised his discretion in a manner that was not erroneous. The court also rejected the appellant's claim that the District Court judge's decision was influenced by bias, as there was no evidence to support such a claim.

Ultimately, the Court of Criminal Appeal found that there was no appealable error in the District Court judge's decision to adjourn the sentencing proceedings. The court dismissed the appeal, and the decision of the District Court to defer sentencing until the outcome of the Magistrates Court proceedings stood. The court emphasised that the District Court judge had the benefit of all relevant submissions and had exercised his discretion appropriately, taking into account the need for coordination of hearings and the importance of ensuring that courts were fully informed of relevant events occurring in other courts. The court also noted that the appellant could apply for reconsideration if events did not unfold as anticipated.

Orders