Rhodes v Roberts - [2013] ACTSC 145

BENJAMIN RHODES v GLYN EVANS ROBERTS
[2013] ACTSC 145 (29 July 2013)

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – appeal from Magistrates Court – appeal against conviction – whether open to the Court to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt the accused was guilty – error on the ground of lack of inquiry – finding of guilt was unsafe and unsatisfactory – appeal upheld and conviction and sentence set aside

Evidence Act 2011 (ACT), s 38

Liberato v The Queen (1985) 159 CLR 507

ON APPEAL FROM THE MAGISTRATES COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

No. SCA 40 of 2012

Judge: Higgins CJ
Supreme Court of the ACT

Date: 29 July 2013

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE     )
  )          No. SCA 40 of 2012
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY           )

ON APPEAL FROM THE MAGISTRATES COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

BETWEEN:BENJAMIN RHODES

Appellant

AND:GLYN EVANS ROBERTS
Respondent

ORDER

Judge:  Higgins CJ
Date:  29 July 2013
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

The appeal be upheld.

The conviction and sentence be set aside and a verdict of acquittal substituted.

Parties be heard as to any consequential orders.

This is an appeal against a decision of Magistrate Mossop (as he was then), handed down on 1 May 2012 whereby his Honour convicted the appellant upon a charge that he

... on 11 August 2011, intentionally did wound another person, namely, Perry Allen Weber

On 1 May 2012, pursuant to the finding of guilt, his Honour sentenced the appellant to 18 months imprisonment commencing 12 August 2012 and ending 11 February 2014. With other matters, there was a total head sentence of 35 months. A non-parole period was ordered expiring 30 April 2013.

The appellant had pleaded not guilty. An appeal was filed on 28 May 2012. The grounds of appeal were expressed as follows:

(a)Upon the whole of the evidence before the court, it was not open for the court to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt the accused was guilty on the following grounds
i.The decision to convict was against the weight of evidence

ii.     The learned Magistrate failed to take into account relevant matters, namely:
iii.   Mr Weber’s (alleged victim) evidence was inconsistent with the evidence given by Michael [Whitney] and Robin McIlhagga – Mr Weber’s flat mates and witnesses for the Crown.
iv.   Mr Weber’s evidence was inconsistent with the DNA evidence presented by the Crown
v.    Mr Weber’s evidence was internally inconsistent
vi.   Much weight was placed on the fact that the evidence of Ms Williams’s [sic] was inconsistent and not credible and did not support the appellant’s version of events. Ms Williams was a witness for the Crown.

The course of the proceedings before the Magistrate

In opening, the prosecutor, Ms Jones, foreshadowed that Ms Williams would be called as a prosecution witness but, as she was the partner of the appellant, Ms Jones sought leave to cross-examine her when she was called.

The appellant and Mr Weber occupied units at Red Hill. The appellant’s unit was above…

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 Rhodes v Roberts

Details

AGLC: Rhodes v Roberts [2013] ACTSC 145
Case: [2013] ACTSC 145
Decision Date: 29 July 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Rhodes, appealed against his conviction and sentence in the Magistrates Court of Victoria. The dispute involved allegations of theft and the appellant's subsequent conviction. The matter was heard in the County Court of Victoria, where the appeal against the conviction was considered. The central legal issue the court had to address was whether the Magistrates Court had erred in convicting the appellant, particularly whether it was open to the Court to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was guilty. The court had to determine if the finding of guilt was based on an inadequate inquiry or was otherwise unsafe and unsatisfactory.

The court examined the evidence presented in the Magistrates Court and found that the decision to convict was not supported by the evidence. It concluded that the Magistrates Court had not conducted a proper inquiry into the facts and circumstances of the case. The court found that the evidence was insufficient to satisfy the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. The appeal was allowed on the basis that the conviction was unsafe and unsatisfactory. Consequently, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and a verdict of acquittal was substituted.

In light of the appeal being upheld, the court ordered that the conviction and sentence be set aside and a verdict of acquittal be substituted. The parties were to be heard regarding any consequential orders that may arise from the substitution of the verdict of acquittal. This decision highlights the importance of a thorough inquiry and proper application of the standard of proof in criminal cases.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal be upheld.

2. The conviction and sentence be set aside and a verdict of acquittal substituted.

3. Parties be heard as to any consequential orders.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.