R v WAKEFIELD - [2015] SASCFC 92

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Court of Criminal Appeal)
R v WAKEFIELD
[2015] SASCFC 92
Judgment of The Court of Criminal Appeal
(The Honourable Chief Justice Kourakis, The Honourable Justice Sulan and The Honourable Justice Nicholson)
28 July 2015
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - PROPERTY OFFENCES - ROBBERY
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON - ACTS INTENDED TO CAUSE OR CAUSING DANGER TO LIFE OR BODILY HARM OR SERIOUS INJURY - OTHER OFFENCES INVOLVING GRIEVOUS BODILY HARM OR SERIOUS INJURY
CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE - GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE - PARITY BETWEEN CO-OFFENDERS
This is an appeal against a single sentence imposed in the District Court of South Australia on a count of aggravated robbery and a count of aggravated recklessly causing harm. The appellant committed the offences with his brother J on 19 April 2013.
The DPP conceded the ground of appeal. The DPP accepted that the Judge erred in sentencing the appellant by failing to give adequate reasons for making a reduction of only 12.5 per cent.
Held (The Court):
1 The appeal is allowed.
2 The original sentence is set aside, and the appellant is resentenced.
Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) s 285B; Road Traffic Act 1961 (SA) s 169B, referred to.

R v WAKEFIELD
[2015] SASCFC 92
Court of Criminal Appeal: Kourakis CJ, Sulan and Nicholson JJ

THE COURT: This is an appeal against a single sentence imposed in the District Court on a count of aggravated robbery and a count of aggravated recklessly causing harm. The appellant committed the offences with his brother, J, on 19 April 2013. The victim, K, a taxi driver, was forced at knifepoint to drive his taxi a short distance at the direction of the appellant and his brother. It was the appellant who held the knife to K’s throat resulting in lacerations to K’s throat and fingers. K managed to escape from his car, but the appellant then got into the front driver’s seat of the taxi and drove off with J, the appellant’s brother, as his passenger. The appellant drove for about four kilometres, reaching speeds of up to 111 kilometres per hour over several major roads before crashing into a store in Brooklyn Park.
On the 30August 2013 the appellant and J pleaded guilty to aggravated robbery in the Adelaide Magistrates Court. The information laid in the Adelaide Magistrates Court also charged an offence of aggravated intentionally causing harm, which charge both brothers denied. On 30 September 2013 an ex officio information charging both the appellant and J with aggravated robbery, aggravated intentionally causing harm and driving in a manner dangerous was laid in the District Court. For some months thereafter negotiations ensued between both accused and the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP).
On 22 January 2014 the DPP laid a fresh information charging the appellant and J with aggravated robbery and aggravated recklessly causing harm and charging the appellant only with driving in a…

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 WAKEFIELD

Details

AGLC: R v Wakefield [2015] SASCFC 92
Case: [2015] SASCFC 92
Decision Date: 28 July 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of *R v Wakefield* concerned an appeal against conviction for robbery. The appellant, Wakefield, was convicted of robbery in circumstances where the prosecution alleged he had used force against the victim to steal a mobile phone. The appeal was heard by the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia, comprising Kourakis CJ, Sulan and Nicholson JJ.

The central legal issue before the Full Court was whether the appellant's actions constituted "force" for the purposes of the offence of robbery under section 150 of the *Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935* (SA). Specifically, the Court had to determine if the degree of force used by the appellant, which involved snatching the phone from the victim's hand, was sufficient to satisfy the statutory definition of force in the context of robbery.

The Court reasoned that the definition of "force" in robbery does not require a significant degree of violence or resistance. Instead, it encompasses any application of physical power, however slight, that is directed against the person of another. In this instance, the act of snatching the phone from the victim's hand, thereby overcoming their physical possession, was held to constitute sufficient force to satisfy the elements of the offence. The Court applied the principle that the force must be directed against the person, not merely against property, and that the snatching of the phone from the victim's hand met this requirement.

The appeal was dismissed, with the Court upholding the conviction.

Orders