R v Vaughan

[2009] SASC 156

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA

(Criminal: Application)

R v VAUGHAN

[2009] SASC 156

Reasons for Ruling of The Honourable Justice Kelly

1 June 2009

CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - PARTICULAR GROUNDS - UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE VERDICT - WHERE APPEAL DISMISSED

Held: no arguable case existed that the verdict of the jury was unsafe or unreasonable - trial judge did not err in refusing to admit evidence - permission to appeal refused.

R v VAUGHAN
[2009] SASC 156

KELLY J

Reasons for refusing permission to appeal

1. The applicant seeks permission to appeal on five grounds. 

2. At the hearing of the application for permission, counsel for the applicant indicated that the notice of appeal already filed would be amended to incorporate grounds 1, 2 and 3 into one ground of appeal alleging that the verdict of the jury is unsafe and unsatisfactory.  He also indicated that ground 4 would be abandoned and that ground 5 was not to be pursued except as a particular of ground 1. 

3. Subsequent to the hearing an amended notice of appeal, which now contains two grounds of appeal, was filed.  Even if I was minded to grant permission on ground 1, I would not do so in respect of the current notice of appeal filed as I consider the particulars alleged are deficient.  It is not for the Court of Criminal Appeal to comb through the transcript of an argument and try to divine what particulars are relied on by an applicant.  In any event I do not consider that an arguable case has been made out on either ground of appeal for the following reasons. 

4. The prosecution case was essentially dependent on the evidence of an accomplice Mr Troy Vonderwall.  Mr Vonderwall had admitted his involvement in a robbery at a post office.  It was his car that was used.  He drove the car to the post office and on his account he sat outside the post office while two other men, a man by the name of Miller and a man by the name of O’Loughlin entered the post office with weapons and threatened the owner before stealing property including money and watches.  The applicant Mr Vaughan remained outside as a nit keeper and kept an eye on Vonderwall.  Mr Vonderwall was given immunity from prosecution and his evidence was uncorroborated. 

5. The applicant did not give evidence.

6. There was no complaint about any of the trial judge’s directions.  The trial judge gave a strong and comprehensive accomplice warning.  All of the matters about which the applicant complains, are matters essentially which went to the credit of Mr Vonderwall.  Mr Vonderwall was cross examined during the trial for a period of nearly three days.  All of these matters were before the jury which nevertheless chose to convict.  I can see no reason at all why the properly directed jury could not have reached a conclusion of guilt on the evidence of Mr Vonderwall.  In my view there is no arguable case that the verdict is unsafe or unsatisfactory. 

7. The second ground of appeal relates to the refusal of the trial judge to admit a letter from Centrelink.  I have read the argument and the transcript relating to that evidence and the trial judge’s reasons for excluding it.  In my view his Honour was perfectly entitled in the exercise of his discretion, to conclude that the evidence lacked sufficient probative value and relevance to any fact in issue to justify its admission.  Therefore I would refuse permission on this ground as well. 

8. For these reasons permission to appeal is refused.