Legal Research
Cases
R v Wheeler

R v Wheeler

Case [2005] SADC 116 31 August 2005

Self-Defence

Proportionality

Admissibility of Evidence

Mens Rea & Intention

Compensatory Damages

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v WHEELER
Criminal Trial by Judge Alone
Reasons for the Verdict of His Honour Judge Smith
31 August 2005
CRIMINAL LAW
Particular offences - offences against the person - wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm.
Accused charged with wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm – after a history of enmity between accused and alleged victim including an assault by the victim on the accused at a hotel just prior to the wounding – victim and accomplice follow accused home and confront him at his front door in the early hours of the morning – victim assaults accused – accused attempts to retreat inside – accused draws and threatens victim with knife then stabs victim.
Trial by judge without jury – accused contended that wounding was lawful self-defence – consideration of purpose of admitting evidence of victim’s two prior convictions for offences of violence and three instances of previous violent conduct – evidence of prior convictions admitted for the purpose of discrediting the evidence of the victim but not as to his propensity to violence – evidence of two instances of prior violent conduct towards the accused admitted to establish victim’s propensity to violence conduct generally and hostility in particular to the accused on the basis that such is relevant to issues arising within the defence of self-defence – accused declined to give evidence on oath but relied upon extensive video recorded police interview – discussion of use to be made of what accused said in interview – consideration of parameters of self-defence – consideration of psychiatric evidence of accused’s low level of psychological functioning and its relationship to the genuineness of the accused’s belief as to the appropriateness of his defensive conduct – discussion of whether use of knife proportionate to threat posed. Held – prosecution failed to negative self-defence or the reasonable possibility thereof – verdict not guilty.
Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 s15, 21, referred to.
R v Wheeler [2004] SASC 397; Bedi v R (1993) 61 SASR 269; Bugg v Day (1949) 79 CLR 442; R v Aldridge (1990) 51 A Crim R 281; R v Kizon (1985) 18 A Crim R 59; R v Besim [2004] VSC 168; R v Ellem (No. 1) [1995] 2 Qd R 542; Spence v Demasi (1998) 48 SASR 538; R v Anastasiou (aka Peters) (1991) 21 NSWLR 394, considered.

R v WHEELER
[2005] SADC 116
Introduction

The accused is charged on Information as follows:
Statement of Offence
Wounding with Intent to do Grievous Bodily Harm. (Section 21 of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935).
Particulars of Offence
Claytn Rex Wheeler on the 7^th day of March 2003 at Grange, unlawfully and maliciously wounded Shane Rowan, with intent to do him grievous bodily harm.
Upon his plea of not guilty, the trial proceeded before me without a jury. There had been a previous trial in the Supreme Court before a Judge and Jury…

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 Wheeler

Details

AGLC: R v Wheeler [2005] SADC 116
Case: [2005] SADC 116
Decision Date: 31 August 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of R v Wheeler involved an accused charged with wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm. The dispute arose from a series of violent incidents between the accused and the alleged victim, including an assault on the accused by the victim at a hotel prior to the alleged wounding. The incident in question occurred when the victim, accompanied by an accomplice, followed the accused home and confronted him at his front door in the early hours. A physical altercation ensued, during which the accused drew a knife and stabbed the victim. The accused claimed that his actions were in lawful self-defence.

The court was required to determine several legal issues, including the admissibility of the victim's prior convictions and instances of violent conduct. The defence argued that this evidence was necessary to discredit the victim's testimony and to establish the victim's propensity for violence, particularly towards the accused. The court also had to assess the parameters of self-defence in this context, considering the accused's psychological functioning and whether his belief in the necessity of using the knife was genuine and reasonable. Additionally, the court needed to evaluate whether the accused's use of a knife was proportionate to the threat posed by the victim.

The court ruled that the prosecution had not successfully negated the accused's claim of self-defence or the reasonable possibility thereof. The evidence presented did not convincingly demonstrate that the accused's actions were not a genuine attempt at self-defence. The court found that the accused's belief in the necessity of using the knife was reasonable given the circumstances and the history of violence between the parties. Consequently, the court acquitted the accused on the charge of wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm.

No further orders were made beyond the verdict of not guilty.

Orders