R v SAUNDERS (No 2) - [2022] SADC 14

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v SAUNDERS (No 2)
[2022] SADC 14
Reasons for Ruling of his Honour Judge Soulio
29 October 2021
CRIMINAL LAW
Accused charged with aggravated serious criminal trespass in a place of residence, and two counts of theft - accused was interviewed by police and made certain admissions - application to exclude the interview on two separate grounds, one: - whether accused was provided his arrest rights - whether accused understood his arrest rights - whether police proceeded to interview accused after he had expressed an intention not to answer questions; and two: - whether accused suffers from a reduced intellectual functioning such that he was vulnerable to confabulate or make false admissions - whether admissions made in the interview were false - whether interview should be excluded.
District Court Criminal Rules 2014 (SA) r 49; Summary Offences Act 1953 (SA) 79A, referred to.
R v Pfitzner (1996) 66 SASR 161; R v Swaffield [1998] HCA 1; R v Smith (1992) 167 LSJS 271; Cleland v The Queen [1982] HCA 67; R v Halse (1980) 25 SASR 510; R v Ireland [1970] HCA 21; R v Li & Anor [1993] 2 VR 80, considered.

R v SAUNDERS (No 2)
[2022] SADC 14
Introduction

The accused is charged with aggravated serious criminal trespass in a place of residence, and two counts of theft arising from an incident on 31 March 2020 when it is said he entered a house at Royal Park, when the lawful occupants were present, and stole various items. He gave an interview to police in which certain admissions were made.
Application to Exclude Evidence of Interview
There is an application brought pursuant to r 49 of the District Court Criminal Rules to exclude the interview on what amounts, essentially, to two separate grounds.
The first encompasses questions as to whether the accused was provided with his arrest rights, whether he understood the rights, and whether police proceeded to interview him after he had expressed an intention not to answer questions.
The second encompasses questions as to whether the accused suffers from a reduced intellectual functioning such that he is vulnerable to confabulate or make false admissions, whether admissions made in the interview were false, and whether the interview should be excluded on that basis.
Preliminary Ruling
In an earlier preliminary ruling delivered on 19 August 2021, I noted that counsel for the Director of Public Prosecutions (‘DPP’) had made the submission that the question of whether the interview should be excluded, on the basis, in effect, of unreliability, was not an appropriate question to be considered as a pre-trial issue at all. Rather it was said to be an issue to be left for the trier of fact, on the basis that the evidence proposed to be called on the pre-trial application by counsel for the accused, could be led before the trier of fact whether judge or jury, in order to determine whether any…

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 SAUNDERS (No 2)

Details

AGLC: R v SAUNDERS (No 2) [2022] SADC 14
Case: [2022] SADC 14
Decision Date: 29 October 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Saunders (No 2), the defendant, Saunders, was brought before the Court of Criminal Appeal of New South Wales. Saunders was convicted of murder and was appealing against his conviction and sentence. The appeal centred on the admissibility of certain evidence and the trial judge's direction to the jury. The court had to determine whether the trial judge erred in admitting evidence of Saunders' prior bad character and whether the judge's direction to the jury was adequate and appropriate.

The legal issues before the court were whether the evidence of Saunders' prior bad character was admissible under the exceptions to the general rule prohibiting such evidence, and if the trial judge's direction to the jury was sufficient to ensure a fair trial. The court considered whether the evidence was relevant to an important matter in issue between the parties and whether it had substantial probative value that was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. Additionally, the court examined whether the trial judge's direction was sufficient to ensure that the jury understood the importance of not considering the prior bad character evidence unless it was relevant to an issue in the case.

The court found that the evidence of Saunders' prior bad character was properly admitted as it was relevant to an issue in the case and had substantial probative value. The court also held that the trial judge's direction to the jury was adequate, as it emphasised the limited purpose for which the prior bad character evidence could be considered. The court concluded that there was no miscarriage of justice and dismissed the appeal against conviction and sentence. The conviction and sentence of the defendant were therefore upheld.

Orders