Sharman v Police

In the case of Sharman v Police, the appellant, Sharman, appealed against his convictions for assault and assault causing harm. The matter was heard by the Supreme Court of South Australia. The primary issue before the court was whether the appellant's defence was conducted with such flagrant incompetence that it necessitated a new trial. The court had to determine if the incompetence of the defence counsel affected the result of the trial, which would warrant a new hearing.

The court considered the nature of the appeal under the Magistrates Court Act 1991 (SA) and the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA). It noted that an appeal of this nature is a rehearing of the cause at the date of the appeal, with the power to receive further evidence. The court acknowledged that while the magistrate made firm findings about the evidence of critical witnesses, the appellant's trial counsel allowed his practising certificate to lapse, which is a matter to be referred to the Legal Profession Conduct Commissioner. The court concluded that the appellant's defence counsel was unprepared and disorganised, which was detrimental to the appellant's case.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the verdicts of the magistrate, and remitted the matter to the Magistrates Court for a new hearing. The court found that the incompetence of the defence counsel constituted a material irregularity, which was sufficient to warrant a new trial without the need to establish that it affected the result of the trial. The court highlighted the importance of a legal practitioner being properly prepared to represent their client effectively, especially in serious charges. The decision underscores the gravity of a lawyer's dereliction of duty and the impact it can have on the administration of justice.