Roberts v Rhodes - [2014] ACTCA 20

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	Roberts v Rhodes
Citation:	[2014] ACTCA 20
Hearing Date(s):	12 May 2014
DecisionDate:	20 June 2014
Before:	Murrell CJ, Burns, Ross JJ
Decision:	Appeal dismissed
Category:	Principal Judgment
Catchwords:	APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – Nature of appeal from magistrate to Supreme Court – Whether error of law or fact must be established APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – Meaning of “unsafe and unsatisfactory” verdict – Whether appeal judge erred in finding factual error – Whether appeal judge erred in finding legal error rendered verdict unsafe and unsatisfactory – Whether appeal judge incorrectly applied “reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence” test
Legislation Cited:	Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) pt 2A, s 21 Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) s 21 Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT) s 37E
Cases Cited:	Allesch v Maunz (2000) 203 CLR 172 Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118 Gaunder v Hogan [2014] ACTCA 4 Lukatela v Birch (2008) 223 FLR 1 R v Hillier (2007) 228 CLR 618
Parties:	Glyn Evan Roberts (Appellant) Benjamin Rhodes (Respondent)
Representation:	Counsel: Ms M Jones (Appellant) Mr S Gills (Respondent)
Solicitors: ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Appellant) Aboriginal Legal Service (ACT/NSW) (Respondent)
File Number(s):	ACTCA 52 of 2013 SCA 40 of 2012
Decision under appeal:	Court/Tribunal: ACT Supreme Court Before: Higgins CJ Date of Decision: 29 July 2013 Case Title: Roberts v Rhodes Citation: [2013] ACTSC 145

THE COURT

On 1 May 2012 a magistrate found Mr Rhodes guilty of intentionally wounding Mr Webber on 11 August 2011, contrary to s 21 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT).

Mr Rhodes appealed to a single judge of this Court (the appeal judge), arguing that, upon the whole of the evidence, the verdict was “unsafe and unsatisfactory”, in part because the magistrate erred in the manner in which he dismissed the evidence of the witness Ms Williams on the basis that it lacked credibility. Ms Williams was Mr Rhodes’ partner. She had been called by the prosecution but she gave evidence favouring Mr Rhodes.

On 29 July 2013, the appeal judge upheld the appeal and substituted an acquittal: Rhodes v Roberts [2013] ACTSC 145.

The appellant appeals from that decision, claiming that the appeal judge erred in the manner in which he approached the test of “unsafe and unsatisfactory” and erred in finding that the magistrate’s verdict was unsafe and unsatisfactory. The appellant contends that:

(a)The appeal judge erred in finding that the magistrate made a factual error in relation to the timing of a triple zero (000) telephone call made by Ms Williams.
(b)The appeal judge correctly identified a legal error made by the magistrate (that the evidence of Ms Williams was unreliable because it was uncorroborated), but his Honour erred in finding that the error rendered the magistrate’s verdict unsafe and unsatisfactory.
(c)The appeal judge erred because he failed to apply the correct legal test; his Honour erroneously applied the “reasonable…

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 Roberts v Rhodes

Details

AGLC: Roberts v Rhodes [2014] ACTCA 20
Case: [2014] ACTCA 20
Decision Date: 20 June 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal concerned the nature of an appeal from a magistrate to the Supreme Court, specifically whether an error of law or fact must be established for such an appeal to succeed. The parties involved were Roberts (appellant) and Rhodes (respondent).

The central legal issues before the Full Court of the Supreme Court were whether the appeal judge had erred in finding that the magistrate's verdict was unsafe and unsatisfactory due to factual error, and whether the appeal judge had incorrectly applied the "reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence" test when determining that the verdict was unsafe and unsatisfactory due to legal error.

The Full Court reasoned that an appeal from a magistrate to the Supreme Court under the relevant legislation does not require the appellant to establish a specific error of law or fact. Instead, the appeal judge is entitled to review the evidence and determine whether the verdict reached by the magistrate was unsafe or unsatisfactory. The Court found that the appeal judge had not erred in their assessment of the evidence or in their application of the legal principles governing such appeals, including the "reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence" test.

The appeal was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed

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.