S, MD v Police - [2011] SASCFC 30

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Full Court: Youth Court Appeal)
S, MD v POLICE
[2011] SASCFC 30
Judgment of The Full Court
(The Honourable Justice Duggan, The Honourable Justice Gray and The Honourable Justice Anderson)
14 April 2011
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - MISCELLANEOUS OFFENCES AND MATTERS - OFFENCES WITH RESPECT TO EXPLOSIVE SUBSTANCES
APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL - GENERAL PRINCIPLES - RIGHT OF APPEAL - WHEN APPEAL LIES - ERROR OF LAW - PARTICULAR CASES INVOLVING ERROR OF LAW - FAILURE TO GIVE REASONS FOR DECISION - ADEQUACY OF REASONS
Appeal against finding of guilt – appellant charged and found guilty by a judge of the Adelaide Youth Court of the offence of manufacturing an explosive at an unauthorised place contrary to s 12(3) of the Explosives Act 1936 (SA) – numerous grounds of appeal submitted on behalf of appellant who was unrepresented – in submissions before the court and in oral application, the respondent raised whether sufficient reasons for decision had been given by the trial judge.
Held: Appeal allowed and finding of guilt and penalty set aside – failure of trial judge to provide adequate reasons for the findings made – findings as to the facts of what occurred were necessary because of the conflicting versions given as to the nature of the appellant’s involvement in the incident – findings as to the credibility or reliability of witnesses were required given important discrepancies between evidence given – no discussion by the trial judge of the legal basis of the appellant’s liability.
Explosives Act 1936 (SA) s 12(3), referred to.
Soulemezis v Dudley (Holdings) Pty Ltd (1987) 10 NSLWR 247; R v Keyte (2000) 78 SASR 68; Papps v Police (2000) 77 SASR 210; M, EG v Police [2007] SASC 128, considered.

S, MD v POLICE
[2011] SASCFC 30
Full Court: Duggan, Gray and Anderson JJ

DUGGAN J: The appellant was found guilty in the Youth Court of manufacturing an explosive at an unauthorised place contrary to s 12(3) of the Explosives Act 1936 (SA). He now appeals against the finding which was made after a trial before a judge of the Youth Court.
According to the case for the prosecution, the offence took place at the appellant’s secondary school on 23 October 2009. It was alleged at the trial that the appellant and another youth, NB, made a chlorine bomb in a water bottle during recess time on a school day. The bomb did not explode immediately and it was decided to abandon the project. The bomb was thrown into a garbage bin where it exploded, causing a temporary injury to the eyes of a teacher at the school.
The appellant was represented at the hearing before the Youth Court by his father, who also spoke on the appellant’s behalf on the hearing of the appeal. It appears that the appellant’s father prepared the grounds of appeal.
The evidence discloses that NB was the instigator of the idea to make 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 S, MD v Police

Details

AGLC: S, MD v Police [2011] SASCFC 30
Case: [2011] SASCFC 30
Decision Date: 14 April 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Adelaide Youth Court found the appellant, S, MD, guilty of manufacturing an explosive at an unauthorised place contrary to s 12(3) of the *Explosives Act 1936* (SA). The appellant, who was unrepresented, appealed this finding of guilt. The respondent raised the issue of whether the trial judge had provided sufficient reasons for their decision.

The appeal required the court to determine whether the trial judge’s reasons for finding the appellant guilty were adequate. This involved considering whether the judge had sufficiently addressed the factual disputes presented by conflicting evidence regarding the appellant's involvement and the nature of the incident. Furthermore, the court needed to assess whether the judge had adequately considered the credibility of witnesses, particularly in light of significant discrepancies in the evidence. The legal basis for the appellant's liability was also a key consideration.

The Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia allowed the appeal, setting aside the finding of guilt and the penalty. The court held that the trial judge had failed to provide adequate reasons for their findings. Specifically, the judge did not make necessary findings of fact concerning the appellant's involvement due to conflicting accounts of the incident. The court also noted the absence of any discussion regarding the credibility or reliability of witnesses, despite important discrepancies in their evidence, and a lack of explanation for the legal basis of the appellant's liability.

Orders