South Australia Police v Hill

The South Australia Police appealed to the Court of Appeal against a Magistrate's decision to dismiss two charges against the respondent, Russell Hill. The dispute concerned whether the respondent could be convicted of both an aggravated assault and the contravention of an intervention order arising from the same conduct, with the Magistrate having ruled that such a course would constitute impermissible double charging. The appeal was referred to the Court of Appeal due to the significant public importance of the issues raised.

The Court of Appeal was required to determine two primary legal questions. Firstly, whether subsection 20(3) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) creates a single offence or multiple offences, depending on the existence of circumstances of aggravation. Secondly, the Court had to consider whether a conviction for contravening an intervention order, where the conduct also constitutes a substantive offence, precludes a conviction for that substantive offence, particularly when the substantive offence is aggravated by another circumstance, and vice versa.

A majority of the Court (Lovell, Doyle and Livesey JJA, and Blue AJA) held that subsection 20(3) creates a single offence, with differential maximum penalties depending on the presence of aggravating circumstances. They further determined that a conviction for contravening an intervention order, where the conduct comprises a substantive offence, does not preclude a conviction for the substantive offence, or vice versa. Kourakis CJ, while not definitively ruling on the single versus multiple offence question, agreed that a conviction for contravening an intervention order does not preclude a conviction for the substantive offence, even if aggravated.

Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal. Subject to hearing the parties, the Court ordered that convictions be recorded on the two counts that had been dismissed by the Magistrate, without altering the sentence already imposed by the Magistrate.