S, MD v Police

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.