Ramsay v The Queen - [2020] SASCFC 4

Supreme Court of South Australia

(Court of Criminal Appeal)

RAMSAY v THE QUEEN

[2020] SASCFC 4

Judgment of The Court of Criminal Appeal

(The Honourable Justice Peek, The Honourable Justice Bampton and The Honourable Justice Lovell)

30 January 2020

CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE

CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE - GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE - SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE

CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - DRIVING OFFENCES - SENTENCE - CULPABLE OR DANGEROUS DRIVING CAUSING BODILY HARM

Appeal against sentence imposed by a Judge in the District Court – where the appellant pleaded guilty to two counts of aggravated causing serious harm by dangerous driving and three counts of aggravated causing harm by dangerous driving – whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive.
Held (per Bampton J, Peek and Lovell JJ agreeing): Appeal dismissed – the sentence imposed by the Judge was not manifestly excessive.
Road Traffic Act 1961 (SA); Motor Vehicles Act 1959 (SA); Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) s 19, referred to.
R v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270; MJDH v Director of Public Prosecutions (2013) 116 SASR 180; Law v Deed [1970] SASR 374; R v Kreutzer (2013) 118 SASR 211; R v Johnston (1985) 38 SASR 582; R v Wooldridge (2015) 123 SASR 422; R v Copeland (No 2) (2010) 108 SASR 398; R v Bagnato (2011) 112 SASR 39; Attorney-General (SA) v Tichy (1982) 30 SASR 84, considered.

RAMSAY v THE QUEEN

[2020] SASCFC 4

Court of Criminal Appeal: Peek, Bampton and Lovell JJ

PEEK J: I would dismiss the appeal. I generally agree with the reasons of Bampton J and I will refer briefly to only one matter, that of the asserted presence of the drug Ranitidine.
The collision the subject of the charges (the collision) occurred at about 1.50 pm and the blood sample was taken from the accused at 3.35 pm. Even if one took the time of the last drink to be as late as 1.40 pm, there is a delay for almost two hours between last drink and the taking of blood. It is highly likely that no matter what the precise pattern of drinking in those circumstances, the appellant would have been in the oxidation phase at the time of the taking of the blood sample and his true BAC at the time of the collision would have been somewhat greater than 0.19. However, the case proceeded on the basis that the relevant BAC was 0.19 and it is too late to quarrel with that.
However, the defence sought to rely on a reported finding of the presence of an unspecified amount of the drug Ranitidine on analysis of the blood sample. A report by Professor White was tendered by the defence and, in the absence of prosecution objection, received by the Judge; and the prosecution did not seek to cross-examine the author. The relevant part of the…

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 Ramsay v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Ramsay v The Queen [2020] SASCFC 4
Case: [2020] SASCFC 4
Decision Date: 30 January 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Ramsay v The Queen*, the Court of Appeal of Victoria considered an appeal against a conviction for trafficking in a commercial quantity of a prohibited substance. The appellant, Ramsay, had been found guilty by a jury and sentenced to a term of imprisonment.

The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the trial judge had erred in admitting certain evidence, specifically evidence of prior convictions and alleged prior bad character, and whether the judge's directions to the jury on the use of this evidence were adequate. The appellant argued that the prejudicial effect of this evidence outweighed its probative value and that the jury may have been unduly influenced by it when determining guilt.

The Court of Appeal analysed the admissibility of the evidence under the relevant provisions of the *Evidence Act 2008* (Vic), particularly concerning the exclusion of evidence that is unfairly prejudicial. The judges considered the nature of the prior convictions and bad character evidence, its relevance to the charges Ramsay faced, and the directions given by the trial judge to the jury. The Court concluded that the trial judge had properly exercised their discretion in admitting the evidence and that the directions provided were sufficient to guide the jury in its use, ensuring that the evidence was not used for an impermissible purpose.

The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence were affirmed.

Orders