Rankine v The King - [2025] SASCA 61

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Court of Appeal: Criminal)
RANKINE v THE KING
[2025] SASCA 61
Judgment of the Court of Appeal
(The Honourable President Livesey, the Honourable Justice S Doyle and the Honourable Justice David)
5 June 2025
CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE - APPEAL DISMISSED
CRIMINAL LAW - EVIDENCE - IDENTIFICATION EVIDENCE - MODES OF IDENTIFICATION - CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - PROPERTY OFFENCES - ROBBERY
Following a trial before a jury, the appellant and co-accused, Zachary Woods, were found guilty of aggravated robbery contrary to s 137(1) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) (‘the CLCA’) and attempted aggravated robbery contrary to ss 137(1) and 270A of the CLCA. A second co-accused, William Lindsay, pleaded guilty to both offences before the commencement of the trial.
The prosecution alleged at trial was that the appellant and the two co-accused robbed the V Hotel whilst armed and masked. The main issue at trial was the identity of the offenders, and, in particular, whether the prosecution had proved beyond doubt that the appellant was the offender armed with a tyre iron. The prosecution case was circumstantial, and relied on the appellant’s association with the two co-accused in the hours leading up to the robbery, telecommunication evidence and the similarity of his appearance with the offender’s appearance, as depicted in CCTV footage.
The appellant did not give evidence at trial. Defence counsel contended that the jury could not be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the offender armed with the tyre iron was in fact the appellant, suggesting that any number of other men could have been involved.
The appellant seeks permission to appeal against his convictions on the sole ground that the verdicts were unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence.
Held, per the Court, granting permission to appeal but dismissing the appeal:
1.Upon the Court’s independent assessment of the whole of the evidence, it was open to the jury to find beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was guilty of the charged offences.

Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) ss 137(1), 270A, referred to.
Libke v The Queen (2007) 230 CLR 559; M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; Pell v The Queen (2020) 268 CLR 123, considered.

RANKINE v THE KING
[2025] SASCA 61
Court of Appeal – Criminal: Livesey P, Doyle and David JJA

THE COURT: The appellant and two co-accused (Zachary Woods and William Lindsay) were jointly charged with the offences of aggravated robbery contrary to s 137(1) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) (‘the CLCA’) (Count 1) and attempted aggravated robbery contrary to ss 137(1) and 270A of the CLCA (Count 2). Following a trial before a jury, the appellant and Mr Woods were found guilty of the offences. Mr Lindsay pleaded guilty to both offences before the commencement of the trial.
The prosecution case was that the appellant, together with the two co‑accused, robbed 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 Rankine v The King

Details

AGLC: Rankine v The King [2025] SASCA 61
Case: [2025] SASCA 61
Decision Date: 5 June 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Rankine v The King*, the appellant challenged his convictions for robbery on the sole ground that the verdicts were unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence. The Court of Appeal of South Australia, comprising Livesey P, S Doyle and David JJ, considered whether the evidence presented was sufficient to prove the identity of the appellant as one of the three offenders who committed the robbery at a hotel.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution was sufficient to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was the offender armed with a tyre iron who forced entry into the hotel and participated in the subsequent theft. The prosecution's case did not rely on direct identification of the appellant by witnesses but rather on a combination of factors, including the appellant's admitted association with the other two offenders, Mr Woods and Mr Lindsay (who was the appellant's nephew), and telecommunication records demonstrating contact between them immediately before and after the robbery.

The court reasoned that while there was no direct eyewitness identification of the appellant as the offender with the tyre iron, the circumstantial evidence was capable of proving his identity. The telecommunication records showed a pattern of communication between the appellant, Mr Woods, and Mr Lindsay in the hours leading up to the robbery, including messages sent from Mr Lindsay's phone to the appellant's phone shortly before the incident. This evidence, when considered alongside the appellant's admitted knowledge of the other offenders, supported an inference that they were acting in concert. The court concluded that this body of circumstantial evidence was sufficient to prove the identity of the third offender as the appellant, rendering the verdicts not unreasonable.

Permission to appeal was granted, but the appeal itself was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

The appellant challenges his convictions on the sole ground that the verdicts were unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence. For the reasons which follow, we grant permission to appeal but dismiss the appeal. We are satisfied there was sufficient evidence to prove the identity of the third offender as the appellant and accordingly, the verdicts are not unreasonable.The evidence at trial On 9 October 2019 at about 2:15am, three offenders forced their way through a locked front entrance to the Hotel. They arrived in the silver Hyundai. The prosecution alleged that the appellant, armed with a tyre iron, exited the silver Hyundai from the rear left passenger seat. He was followed by Mr Woods who was the driver, and Mr Lindsay who exited from the front passenger seat carrying a firearm. The appellant threw a mallet or hammer through the sliding front entrance doors of the Hotel and kicked in the door. They then went inside the Hotel. The prosecution alleged that once inside the premises, the appellant and Mr Lindsay entered the office of the duty manager, SH. They yelled at him to open the safe, which SH told them he could not do. Mr Lindsay grabbed some bundles of cash from the desk and two ATM cash drawers. The appellant then grabbed a coin tin from the desk drawers and picked up two ATM cash drawers. During his time in the duty manager’s office, the appellant’s mask slipped and revealed part of his face. While this was occurring, Mr Woods was in the strongroom filling up a plastic rubbish bin with gold coins. Mr Lindsay left the office and pointed the firearm at an employee, JM, and demanded cash. She told him that she only had coins and to take as many as he wanted (Count 2). The three offenders then left the premises. On their way, Mr Lindsay picked up a black plastic tub of gold coins called a ‘drop box’. Mr Woods attempted to carry the rubbish bin with coins but dropped it and left it behind at the front entrance. They all then drove away in the silver Hyundai. As mentioned earlier, the whole incident was captured on CCTV. There was no dispute that three men committed a robbery, or that two of the men were armed. In relation to the appellant, the issue at trial was whether the prosecution had proved that the identity of the offender with the tyre iron was the appellant. The prosecution case against the appellant was a circumstantial one which relied on the following bodies of evidence. First, the association and contact between the appellant and Mr Lindsay and Mr Woods immediately before the robbery. The appellant, during a record of interview with police on 4 November 2019, admitted to knowing both Mr Lindsay and Mr Woods. Indeed, Mr Lindsay is the appellant’s nephew. There was telecommunication evidence that supported the inference that the appellant had been in the company of Mr Lindsay and Mr Woods before and after the robbery. The mobile phone records associated with the three men showed that they were contacting each other in the hours leading up to the robbery, through text messages and voice calls. Records from Mr Lindsay’s mobile phone showed that the following messages were sent by his phone to the phone used by the appellant on 8 October 2019:·at 7:12pm, ‘Trevor’;·at 10:05pm, ‘My number is’ and [a phone number]; and·at 10:06pm, ‘Hurry up or I’m going’.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.