R v Walters

Case [2022] SASC 156

Supreme Court of South Australia

(Criminal)

R v WALTERS

Criminal Trial by Judge Alone

[2022] SASC 156

Reasons for the Verdicts of the Honourable Justice Stein  

22 December 2022

CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON - HOMICIDE - MURDER

CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON - HOMICIDE - MANSLAUGHTER

On 23 May 2020, after consuming drugs and alcohol, the accused and the victim engaged in an altercation after which the victim was found dead. The accused was charged with murder of the victim.

Held: the accused found not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter by unlawful and dangerous act.

Juries Act 1927 (SA) s 7(1); Evidence Act 1929 (SA); Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) ss 15, 267A, 268, referred to.
R v Gardiner [2013] SASCFC 53; R v Baden-Clay (2016) 258 CLR 308; Plomp v The Queen (1963) 110 CLR 234; Bromley v The Queen; Karpany v The Queen (1986) 161 CLR 315; Royall v The Queen (1991) 172 CLR 378; R v Moffatt (2000) 112 A Crim R 201; R v McCarthy (2015) 124 SASR 190; R v Hallett [1969] SASR 141; Mamote-Kulang of Tamagot v The Queen (1964) 111 CLR 62 ; Campbell v The Queen [1981] WAR 286 ; R v PL (2009) 261 ALR 365 ; R v Gardiner [2015] SASCFC 107; Ryan v The Queen (1967) 121 CLR 205; R v McDonald (2015) 123 SASR 313 ; R v Perks (1986) 41 SASR 335; Kural v The Queen (1987) 162 CLR 502 ; Peacock v The King (1911) 13 CLR 619 ; Viro v The Queen (1978) 141 CLR 88; R v Wingfield (1994) 176 LSJS 14; R v Roberts (2011) 111 SASR 100 ; Police v Lloyd (1998) 72 SASR 271 ; R v Jones (2017) 129 SASR 522 ; R v Miller (2019) 134 SASR 155 ; R v Thiyagarajah [2019] SASC 84 ; Masciantonio v The Queen (1995) 183 CLR 58 ; Wilson v The Queen (1992) 174 CLR 313 ; Arulthilakan v The Queen (2003) 203 ALR 259 ; R v Childs (2007) 98 SASR 111 ; R v B, MA (2007) 99 SASR 384 ; Trezise v Police [2009] SASC 209, considered.

R v WALTERS
[2022] SASC 156

Criminal: Trial by Judge Alone

  1. STEIN J:  On a number of days leading up to 23 May 2020, the accused, Mr Walters, consumed methamphetamine.  On 23 May, Mr John McLellan and Mr Walters spent time together, travelling into the Adelaide central business district by taxi and thereafter returning separately to a unit in Gilberton.  Both consumed illicit drugs and alcohol.  In the early evening, there was an altercation between them and, at about 9.45 pm, Mr John McLellan was found dead.  Mr Walters was charged with the murder of Mr McLellan. 

  2. Identity was not in issue.  The main issues in contention were the number of blows inflicted by Mr Walters upon…

Continue reading R v Walters

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Walters [2022] SASC 156
Case
[2022] SASC 156
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Walters was heard by the court, where the defendant, Mr Walters, was accused of the murder of a victim. The central issue was whether the prosecution had established beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Walters caused the death of the victim with the requisite intention and that his actions were voluntary and deliberate. The court had to consider the reliability of witness testimony, particularly that of Mr Sullivan, and whether it was sufficiently corroborated to support a conviction.

The legal issues before the court involved the elements of the offence of murder, including causation, voluntariness, and the requisite intention. The court had to determine whether the prosecution had proved that Mr Walters' actions were a substantial cause of the victim's death and whether those actions were deliberate and intended to cause death or grievous bodily harm. Additionally, the court needed to assess the reliability and weight of the evidence, particularly from Mr Sullivan, and whether there was a reasonable hypothesis consistent with Mr Walters' innocence that would warrant an acquittal.

The court examined the evidence presented, including the expert opinions and the testimonies of various witnesses. It considered the agreed facts, the credibility of Mr Sullivan's testimony, and the potential impact of Mr Walters' prior conduct on his character. The court also evaluated the circumstantial evidence and whether it formed a complete chain of events that excluded any reasonable hypothesis other than Mr Walters' guilt. Ultimately, the court found that the prosecution had met its burden of proof, establishing the elements of murder beyond reasonable doubt.

The court concluded that Mr Walters was guilty of murder and ordered that he be remanded in custody pending sentencing. The court emphasised the importance of the evidence being assessed as a whole and the necessity of excluding any reasonable hypothesis of innocence. The case highlighted the rigorous standards required for a murder conviction and the careful consideration of witness reliability and corroboration.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Counsel for Mr Walters submitted that Mr Sullivan was such an unreliable witness that I should not accept his evidence absent corroboration. He submitted that a combination of matters, including Mr Sullivan’s consumption of illicit drugs and consequential impact on his memory, made it positively dangerous for me to rely on Mr Sullivan’s evidence. I have reminded myself of the dangers of convicting on uncorroborated, unreliable evidence.[7] I address Mr Sullivan’s reliability in detail in my reasons under the heading “Assessment of witnesses”. [7] Bromley v The Queen; Karpany v The Queen (1986) 161 CLR 315. Agreed facts Pursuant to the provisions of the Evidence Act 1929 (SA), the parties agreed 43 facts which are set out in Annexure A to these reasons.Elements of the offence of murder A person commits murder if that person causes the death of another person, deliberately and unlawfully, while intending to cause death or grievous bodily harm. In order for an accused to be found guilty of the charge, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt each of the following elements of the offence:1.the act or acts of the accused caused the death of the victim;2.the act or acts of the accused were voluntary and deliberate, that is, they were the result of the exercise of the accused’s will;3.the act or acts of the accused which caused death were done with the intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm to the victim. The intention must exist at the time of the act or acts which caused the death of the victim;4.no lawful excuse or defence applied to the killing.Causation The prosecution must prove that the acts relied on as causing death were a substantial or significant cause of death.[8] The act or acts of the accused need not be the sole, direct or immediate cause of death.[9] It does not matter if the victim is suffering a condition which may cause death or if there is more than one cause of death as long as the act of the accused has relevantly provided a substantial contribution to death.[10] The acts of the accused must have more than a coincidental or insignificant effect,[11] and must be more than merely the setting for some other cause.[12] The accused takes the victim as he finds them, irrespective of the frailty or other infirmity of a victim that may render the victim more susceptible to death.[13] [8] Royall v The Queen (1991) 172 CLR 378 at 398 per Brennan J), 411 per Deane and Dawson JJ, 423 per Toohey and Gaudron JJ.[9] Royall v The Queen (1991) 172 CLR 378 at 398 per Brennan J, 411 per Deane and Dawson JJ, 423 per Toohey and Gaudron JJ, and 441 per McHugh J.[10] R v Moffatt (2000) 112 A Crim R 201 at [65]- [76] per Wood CJ; R v McCarthy (2015) 124 SASR 190 at [335]-[342] per Peek J.[11] R v Moffatt (2000) 112 A Crim R 201 at [71].[12] R v Hallett [1969] SASR 141 at 150.[13] Mamote-Kulang of Tamagot v The Queen (1964) 111 CLR 62 at 79 per Windeyer J. The question of causation is to be determined as a matter of common sense, recognising that the purpose of the inquiry is to attribute legal responsibility in a criminal action.[14][14] Quoted from Campbell v The Queen [1981] WAR 286 at 290 per Burt CJ, endorsed by the High Court in Royall v The Queen (1991) 172 CLR 378 at 387 per Mason CJ, 411-412 per Deane and Dawson JJ, 423 per Toohey and Gaudron JJ and 441 per McHugh J.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

I must consider the evidence of the expert witnesses together with the evidence of all other witnesses. I must determine what of their evidence I accept, what weight is to be attached to that evidence and any inferences that arise from the evidence. In assessing the evidence of an expert witness, relevant factors for my consideration include the qualifications of the witness, the extent to which their evidence accords with other evidence and their impartiality. I am entitled to accept or reject their evidence in whole or in part in the same manner as any other witness.Circumstantial evidence There are some aspects of the prosecution case which are circumstantial. In approaching the circumstantial aspects, I must first decide which facts I accept as established by the evidence. I must then consider what inferences I am willing to draw from those facts. I must consider the totality of the circumstances and not approach the evidence in a piecemeal fashion.[5] Mr Walters is not to be found guilty unless there is no reasonable explanation for all the accepted evidence other than that he is guilty. If there remains any reasonable hypothesis consistent with Mr Walters’ innocence, he must be acquitted.[6][5] R v Baden-Clay (2016) 258 CLR 308 at [46]-[47].[6] Plomp v The Queen (1963) 110 CLR 234; R v Baden-Clay (2016) 258 CLR 308 at [46]-[47].View After the prosecution opening, a view was conducted of the unit. I remind myself that the view does not constitute evidence and was conducted for the purpose only of assisting me to understand the evidence subsequently called.Exhibits The exhibits included physical objects such as a mop, photographs, CCTV footage, body-worn camera footage, video footage of part of a police interview with Mr Walters and transcripts of CCTV and interview footage. I remind myself that the transcripts are not evidence and were provided only as an aide memoire for the purposes of assisting me and I must rely only upon my assessment of the footage. Discreditable conduct Evidence was adduced, without objection, which would have met the description of discreditable conduct. That evidence included alleged acts of violence said to be perpetrated by Mr Walters against Mr Gordon during the evening of 23 May 2020, Mr Walters’ consumption of illicit substances and evidence of Mr Hasler that he saw Mr Walters knock people out with one punch on the streets. During the police interview, Mr Walters referred to his prior incarceration in custody and spitting on a police officer. The evidence of Mr Gordon is generally relevant to a complete account from Mr Gordon of what he said transpired, including how he caused the triple-zero call to be made. Evidence about drug taking and intoxication is relevant to Mr Walters’ level of intoxication. Evidence of Mr Hasler is relevant in relation to the possible force with which Mr Walters punched Mr McLellan. Evidence in the police interview was left in and not subject to objection for the purposes of context. Such evidence of discreditable conduct may not be used by me to reason that Mr Walters is more likely to have committed the charged offence because he engaged in any of the discreditable conduct and I have not used any of the evidence for such impermissible purpose. Unreliable witness warning

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.