R v Yout - [2012] SASCFC 1

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Court of Criminal Appeal)
R v YOUT
[2012] SASCFC 1
Judgment of The Court of Criminal Appeal
(The Honourable Chief Justice Doyle, The Honourable Justice Vanstone and The Honourable Justice Stanley)
11 January 2012
CRIMINAL LAW - GENERAL MATTERS - CRIMINAL LIABILITY AND CAPACITY - DEFENCE MATTERS - DEFENCE OF PERSONS OR PROPERTY - DIRECTIONS TO JURY
CRIMINAL LAW - EVIDENCE - CORROBORATION - DIRECTIONS TO JURY - ADEQUACY OF WARNING - LIES BY ACCUSED
CRIMINAL LAW - EVIDENCE - MATTERS RELATING TO PROOF - BURDEN OF PROOF - DIRECTION TO JURY
CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL - MISDIRECTION AND NON-DIRECTION - EXPRESSION OF JUDGE'S OWN OPINION - PARTICULAR CASES
Appeal against conviction – appellant found guilty of aggravated causing serious harm with intent to cause serious harm and aggravated causing harm with intent to cause harm –appellant involved in a brawl during which he hit two men with a piece of wood – whether trial judge erred in directions to jury on self-defence – whether judge erred in direction to jury on use that could be made of lies the appellant had admitted telling when first interviewed by police – whether judge reversed onus of proof – whether judge’s direction had the effect of usurping the jury’s role.
Held: Vanstone J (Doyle CJ and Stanley J agreeing) appeal dismissed.
Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) s 15, referred to.
Harris v The Queen (1990) 55 SASR 321; Dhanhoa v The Queen (2003) 217 CLR 1, considered.

R v YOUT
[2012] SASCFC 1
Court of Criminal Appeal: Doyle CJ, Vanstone and Stanley JJ

DOYLE CJ: I would dismiss the appeal against conviction. I agree with the reasons of Vanstone J. There is nothing that I wish to add.
VANSTONE J: The appellant stood trial in the District Court, together with another man, Jol, charged with two offences of violence committed against two victims. The first count was aggravated causing serious harm with intent to cause serious harm against a man whom I shall call Branch and the second count was aggravated causing harm with intent to cause harm, the victim being one Rigney.
The appellant was convicted on both charges. Jol was convicted only on Count 2.
The appellant now appeals against the convictions upon grounds that the judge erred in the directions given to the jury on the topic of self‑defence, and about lies which the appellant admittedly told police during an interview. He further complains that the judge incorrectly reversed the onus of proof at one point and that, at another, he gave a direction which had the effect of usurping the jury’s function. A judge of this Court granted permission to appeal on these grounds.
Background
The charges arose out of a confrontation between the occupants of two motor vehicles in the vicinity of Port Road, Beverley at about 11 o’clock on the night of 25 January 2008. Branch and Rigney had been…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Yout and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2012] SASCFC 1
Decision Date: 11 January 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal concerned convictions for aggravated causing serious harm with intent to cause serious harm and aggravated causing harm with intent to cause harm. The appellant was found guilty after being involved in a brawl where he struck two men with a piece of wood. The appeal was brought before the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia, comprising Doyle CJ, Vanstone and Stanley JJ.

The legal issues before the court were whether the trial judge had erred in directing the jury on the defence of self-defence, and in relation to the use the jury could make of lies the appellant had admitted telling to police. Further grounds of appeal alleged that the judge had incorrectly reversed the onus of proof and had made a direction that usurped the jury's function.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding no substance in the grounds raised. While the specific reasoning of each judge is not fully detailed in the provided text, it is clear that the Full Court was not persuaded that the trial judge's directions on self-defence or the appellant's admitted lies to police constituted a reversible error. The court also found no merit in the complaints regarding the reversal of the onus of proof or the alleged usurpation of the jury's role.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

The appellant now appeals against the convictions upon grounds that the judge erred in the directions given to the jury on the topic of self‑defence, and about lies which the appellant admittedly told police during an interview. He further complains that the judge incorrectly reversed the onus of proof at one point and that, at another, he gave a direction which had the effect of usurping the jury’s function. A judge of this Court granted permission to appeal on these grounds.Background The charges arose out of a confrontation between the occupants of two motor vehicles in the vicinity of Port Road, Beverley at about 11 o’clock on the night of 25 January 2008. Branch and Rigney had been at a party. At some stage, along with two others, they went in Branch’s car to the Halfway Hotel to purchase liquor. They were served in the drive-in area of that hotel. The appellant and his companions were also at the hotel purchasing liquor. There were four persons associated with the vehicle driven by the appellant, which was a green Holden Commodore. There was an exchange between some of the occupants of the two vehicles, after which the appellant drove his vehicle away. When the victims left the hotel they saw that the appellant’s vehicle was parked on Port Road. When they passed by, it was driven from the roadside and began to follow them. Shortly afterwards the lights of the appellant’s car flashed at them and both vehicles ended up stopping in a side street running off Port Road. The prosecution case was that a confrontation ensued between the two groups, leading to a fight started by one of the appellant’s group. The prosecution witnesses said that the appellant – identified as being the driver of the green Commodore and the biggest man among his group – then struck Branch to the head with a piece of timber, felling him. It was alleged that shortly afterwards the appellant struck Rigney with the same piece of timber. Other members of the group also engaged in fighting. The confrontation did not last very long. After the groups separated it was realised that Branch had suffered serious head injuries and he was taken to the Queen Elizabeth Hospital. On the following day the appellant was spoken to by police. Initially he said that at the relevant time he had been at a party at Kilkenny and that another person had been in possession of his car. He said he did not know who had been driving his car at about 11.00pm. He said that when he left the party he went back to his car and drove into the city to drop some female friends there and that he had then gone home. He said he did not know the girls’ surnames and could not provide their addresses. When asked about a piece of wood found by police in the boot of his car he denied knowledge of it. After being told by police that a piece of wood which matched the piece in his car had been found on the side of the road near where the fight had occurred, he admitted being present during the incident; but he denied hitting anyone with the wood. He went on to say that he was not initially involved in the confrontation with the victims’ group, that one of his own group had taken the piece of wood from his boot, that at the point of his joining the fight his friends were getting the worst of it and that he had delivered a “couple of punches” to the driver of the other car (one Wilson). He further said he had hit the man with the red top (Rigney) “across the back” once with the piece of wood. The appellant was arrested and advised of his rights. The questioning continued. The appellant then told police that he had been defending himself. He said that one of his friends had yelled out: “Watch out, he’s carrying a knife”, and that the appellant then grabbed “a stick” from his friend and hit the man wearing the red top with it. He also said that he punched the driver of the other car twice.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

I do not consider there is substance in this complaint.Conclusion None of the grounds of appeal has been made good. I would dismiss the appeal. STANLEY J: I would dismiss the appeal. I agree with the reasons of Vanstone J.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.