Ribbon v The Queen

The Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia considered an appeal by Ribbon against his conviction for a drug offence. The appeal concerned the adequacy of the particulars provided by the prosecution and the directions given by the trial judge to the jury.

The central legal issues before the Full Court were whether the trial judge had erred in refusing to order further and better particulars of the charge, and whether the judge's summing-up contained misdirections regarding the need for jury unanimity on specific factual findings. The Court also had to consider the implications of the High Court's decision in *Lane v The Queen* for cases where the prosecution's case relies on multiple distinct acts or events.

The Court found that the respondent had not adequately addressed the implications of *Lane v The Queen*, which concerned a homicide charge where the death could have resulted from one of two distinct physical interactions. In *Lane*, the High Court indicated that where a charge can be established by different factual scenarios, and those scenarios raise different legal considerations or defences, a specific unanimity direction may be required. The Full Court noted that the trial judge had refused to order further particulars, asserting that the accused knew the case he was facing. However, the Court observed that defence counsel's closing address, which asserted that the prosecution had to prove all three particulars, was incorrect. The judge had not corrected this misstatement, nor had he provided an extended unanimity direction, despite the potential for different jurors to have reached their verdict based on different factual findings within the particulars.

The Full Court allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction, and ordered a new trial.