Legal Research
Cases
R v Southon

R v Southon

Case [2003] SASC 205 1 July 2003

Appeal

Jurisdiction

Identification Evidence

Admissibility of Evidence

Type to search within this case.

R v SOUTHON
[2003] SASC 205
Court of Criminal Appeal: Duggan, Lander and Sulan JJ

DUGGAN J In my view the appeal should be allowed and a retrial ordered. I agree with the reasons for decision of Sulan J.
LANDER J I agree with Sulan J’s reasons. I agree the appeal should be allowed and that there be an order for a retrial.
SULAN J The appellant was convicted of assault occasioning actual bodily harm and wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. He has appealed against the conviction.
Introduction
The case against the appellant relied upon identification evidence. A major issue at trial was the identification of the appellant by two principal witnesses, Joshua Bayly (“Bayly”) and Michaela Gund (“Gund”). The appellant did not give evidence. Nevertheless, the two principal witnesses were challenged about the accuracy of their evidence identifying the appellant as the assailant. One of the main issues upon which the appellant relies is that the learned trial judge failed to adequately warn the jury about the dangers of relying upon evidence of identification.
The Case for the Prosecution
The offences occurred on 1 July 2001. The prosecution case was that on 30 June 2001, the day prior to the offences, the victim, Bayly, and his friend, Gund, attended a wedding. On their way to the wedding they stopped at a BiLo supermarket car park located on Tapleys Hill Road, Fulham. A drug transaction took place between Gund and the appellant at the car park. The evidence was that Bayly and Gund were travelling in a motor vehicle driven by a friend. Bayly was seated in the rear of the car. He saw Gund walk to a red VB Commodore which was parked about two car widths away. Bayly saw Gund go to the rear of the Commodore but he could not see what occurred because the boot of the Commodore was up. Gund then returned to the vehicle and they drove to the wedding.
Bayly was aware that a drug transaction had taken place. He understood that the appellant was to receive a quantity of LSD in exchange for a quantity of ‘speed’ which the appellant had supplied to Gund. During his evidence Bayly identified the appellant as that person. In cross-examination, Bayly said that he had been seated in the back seat of the vehicle in which he had been travelling and he observed the appellant from about two cars widths away from the Commodore which was parked in the same row. He agreed that he was not able to see what Gund was doing at the rear of the Commodore. He had never met the appellant.
Gund gave evidence that she met the appellant at the BiLo supermarket car park and there obtained some speed from him. She said that she met the appellant for the first time that day.
Later that day, at about 7 pm, the appellant came to Gund’s unit where she was living with Bayly. Both Bayly and Gund…

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 Southon

Details

AGLC: R v Southon [2003] SASC 205
Case: [2003] SASC 205
Decision Date: 1 July 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Southon, the Court of Criminal Appeal considered an appeal against a conviction for assault occasioning actual bodily harm and wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. The appeal centred on several grounds, including the trial judge's failure to adequately warn the jury about the dangers of relying on identification evidence and the potential unreliability of the witnesses involved. The appellant argued that the trial judge should have given specific warnings about the identification evidence, particularly considering the witnesses' drug use and the circumstances under which the identifications were made. The Court found that the trial judge's directions to the jury about identification evidence were inadequate and amounted to a misdirection. Consequently, the Court concluded that it was not possible to determine with certainty whether the error influenced the jury's verdict. As a result, the Court allowed the appeal and ordered a retrial.

Orders