R v Subramanian

99.89

COURT OF APPEAL
McMURDO P
McPHERSON JA

MUIR J

CA No 333 of 1998
THE QUEEN
v.

RHAAJESH SUBRAMANIANAppellant

BRISBANE
..DATE 23/03/99
230399 T7/SA2 M/T COA55/99
THE PRESIDENT: The appellant has asked for an
adjournment today to enable him to obtain further
evidence from which he hopes to establish that the time
of death of the victims was actually later than the time
alleged by the Crown at trial. He says he hopes to do
this by obtaining pathology reports as to the time blood
takes to dry.

On the information before this Court, that must, as a matter of commonsense, depend on many variables. That seems to be supported by a number of articles in medical encyclopaedias, copies of which have been handed to the appellant.

Having listened carefully to his submissions, the Court is left with the inevitable conclusion that there is no reliable evidence on which we could properly act or be satisfied that the appellant has or will be able to obtain any material that will throw real doubt on the verdicts in this way.

Evidence as to the time blood might take to dry was available at the trial and was to some extent investigated at the trial in the cross-examination by the appellant's barrister. (See, for example, pages 316 and 317 of the record).

I would refuse the application for an adjournment.
230399 T7/SA2 M/T COA55/99
McPHERSON JA: I agree. In essence, the application for
the adjournment is sought in order to present evidence,
not of a kind that is known to exist or is known to be
obtainable, but in order to find out whether any such
evidence might be obtained and might assist the
appellant in his appeal.

As to that, the President has mentioned some of the matters which go to show that such an inquiry or investigation ought properly to have been undertaken at or before the trial and not at this late stage in the proceedings.

I agree therefore that the adjournment should be refused.

MUIR J: I agree that the adjournment should be refused for the reasons given by the President and Mr Justice McPherson.

THE PRESIDENT: The order in that case is that the application for an adjournment is refused.

-----

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of The Queen versus RHAAJESH SUBRAMANIAN, the appellant appealed against his conviction for the murder of two individuals. The appeal was heard by McMurdo P, McPherson JA, and Muir J in the Court of Appeal of South Australia. The appellant sought an adjournment to obtain further evidence that would potentially cast doubt on the time of death of the victims, as alleged by the Crown during the trial. This evidence was intended to be obtained from pathology reports concerning the time it takes for blood to dry.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the appellant's application for an adjournment should be granted, to allow for the potential acquisition of evidence that could challenge the time of death of the victims. The Court considered the reliability of the proposed evidence and the timing of the appellant's attempt to obtain it. The Court concluded that the proposed evidence was speculative and not of a kind that was known to exist or be obtainable, and that any investigation into such evidence should have been conducted at or before the trial, rather than at the appeal stage.

The Court, in agreement, found that the application for an adjournment should be refused. The reasoning behind this decision was that the investigation into the potential evidence was not sufficiently concrete or reliable, and that the appellant should have undertaken such inquiries at or before the trial. Additionally, the evidence regarding the time blood takes to dry was already available and partially investigated during the trial. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, and the application for an adjournment was refused.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established