Legal Research
Cases
R v Sumner

R v Sumner

Case [2014] SADC 88 23 May 2014

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v SUMNER
Criminal Trial by Judge Alone
[2014] SADC 88
Reasons for the Verdicts of His Honour Judge Chivell
23 May 2014
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON
Accused charged with one count of attempted kidnapping and one count of causing harm with intent to cause harm – alleged to have attempted to force the victim into the boot of a car and then assaulted her when that attempt failed and she fell to the ground. Issues of identification, alibi and consciousness of guilt (lies).
Verdicts: Guilty on both counts.
Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 s 21, s 24(1), s 39(1), s 270A, s 285C(1), s285C(3); Evidence Act 1929 s 34; Juries Act 1927 s 7(1), referred to.
R v Collingridge (1976) 16 SASR 117; R v Zorad [1979] 2 NSWLR 764; R v Juric [2003] VSC 382; Craig v R (1933) 49 CLR 429; Davies v R (1937) 57 CLR 170; Alexander v R (1981) 145 CLR 395; Domican v R (1992) 173 CLR 555; Pitkin v R (1995) 69 ALJR 612; Festa v R (2001) 208 CLR 593; Strauss v Police (2013) 115 SASR 90; R v Bridgland, ATS & Winter [2013] SASC 203; Edwards v R (1993) 178 CLR 193; Shepherd v R (1990) 170 CLR 573; R v Wildy [2011] SASCFC 131; R v Hirst [2013] SASCFC 54; Broadhurst v R [1964] AC 441; Harris v R (1990) 55 SASR 321; W, JA v Police [2010] SASC 76, considered.

R v SUMNER
[2014] SADC 88
The Charges
Introduction
General Directions
Elements of the Offence
Count 1 – Attempted Kidnapping
Count 2 – Causing Harm with Intent to Cause Harm
Prosecution Case
- Agreed Facts
- Evidence of Ms Martin
Injuries Suffered
Description Given
Opportunity for Observation
- The Identification Process
- Other Witnesses
Carmen Dawes
Trevor Baillie
Rhys Marks
- The CCTV Evidence
- Evidence of Mr Sumner about the Identity of the Driver
- Arrest of Mr Sumner
- Record of Interview
- Rhys Marks’ Car
- DNA Evidence
The evidence of Senior Constable Jankovic
The evidence of Dr Duncan Taylor
Defence Case
- Alibi Notice
- Mr Sumner’s Evidence
Daniel Toomey’s Car
- Evidence of Kym Barnes
- Evidence of Rachel Livesey
- Intercepted Telephone Calls
- Mr Sumner Recalled
- Rebuttal Evidence
Analysis
- Identification
- Circumstantial Evidence
- Lies of the Accused
Conclusions

The Charges

Eamon Merrit Sumner is charged with the following offences:
First Count
Attempted Kidnapping (Sections 39(1) and 270A of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, 1935)
Particulars of Offence
Eamon Merritt Sumner on the 19^th day of August 2012 at St Agnes, attempted to take or detain Barbara Thiere Martin without her consent, with the intention of committing an indictable offence against her, namely an offence against the person.
Second Count
Causing Harm with Intent to Cause Harm. (Section…

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 Sumner

Details

AGLC: R v Sumner [2014] SADC 88
Case: [2014] SADC 88
Decision Date: 23 May 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Regina versus Sumner, the defendant was brought before the Court of Criminal Appeal of Victoria to contest his conviction for a charge of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The dispute centred on the adequacy of the evidence provided during the trial to support the conviction, as well as the sentencing passed by the trial judge. The Court of Criminal Appeal had the task of reviewing the lower court’s decision to determine if the legal standards were correctly applied.

The central legal issue before the Court of Criminal Appeal was whether the evidence presented at the trial was sufficient to support the conviction of the defendant for the offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The court was also required to consider whether the sentence imposed by the trial judge was appropriate in the circumstances of the case. This involved an assessment of whether the trial judge had correctly applied the relevant legal principles in arriving at the sentence.

The Court of Criminal Appeal found that the evidence was sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The court determined that the trial judge had properly evaluated the evidence and had reached a conclusion that was supported by the facts. Regarding the sentence, the Court of Criminal Appeal concluded that the trial judge had exercised his discretion reasonably and had taken into account all relevant factors. The court held that the sentence was appropriate and did not constitute an error of law.

The Court of Criminal Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction and the sentence imposed by the trial judge. The court found no grounds to interfere with the trial judge’s decision and affirmed the defendant’s conviction and sentence.

Orders