R v Stott

The appellant was convicted in the District Court of South Australia of aggravated creating risk of serious harm, contrary to section 29(2) of the *Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935* (SA). The conviction followed a jury verdict of guilty on count 3, with acquittals on counts 1 and 2, which were aggravated creating risk of harm and aggravated endangering life respectively. The charges arose from incidents occurring on Port Road, Hindmarsh. The appellant appealed against his conviction, submitting that the trial judge erred in rejecting his submission of no case to answer and that, in any event, the verdict was unsafe and unsatisfactory.

The central legal issues before the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia were whether the trial judge correctly determined that there was a sufficient case to answer, and whether the jury's verdict of guilty on count 3 was unsafe or unsatisfactory having regard to the evidence presented. The court was required to consider the evidence at its strongest from the prosecution's perspective and determine if it was capable of supporting a conviction for aggravated creating risk of serious harm.

The Court, comprising Gray, David, and Blue JJ, dismissed the appeal. It was held that the trial judge did not err in refusing the submission of no case to answer. The evidence, when viewed at its highest, was capable of allowing the jury to find the appellant guilty of the offences charged, including count 3. The court found that the jury's verdict was not unsafe or unsatisfactory. Justice David specifically noted that the trial judge's directions to the jury were careful and proper, particularly in highlighting that if the appellant did not see the constable until the moment of swerving, a guilty verdict could not be returned. The jury's conclusion, therefore, must have been based on the appellant driving towards the constable for some distance while aware of her presence before swerving.