Stewart v The King

The appeal concerned Stewart (the appellant) and The King, heard by the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia. The dispute arose from the sentencing of the appellant for an offence, specifically concerning the factual basis upon which the sentencing judge made findings regarding the cause of the victim's fractures.

The legal issues before the court were whether the sentencing judge erred in failing to conduct a disputed facts hearing, and whether the finding that the appellant caused the victim's fractures was established beyond a reasonable doubt. The court also considered whether the agreed facts, which were part of the material before the sentencing judge, assisted the prosecution in meeting its burden of proof.

The Full Court held that the sentencing judge did not err in failing to conduct a disputed facts hearing, as no application for such a hearing was made by the appellant's counsel, and it was not incumbent upon the judge to convene one without such a request. However, the court found that the sentencing judge's conclusion that the appellant caused the fractures was not open to be made beyond a reasonable doubt. This was because the evidence did not exclude the possibility that the fractures were caused during an earlier assault, and the medical evidence, including affidavits from Dr Underwood and Dr Tariq, did not assist the prosecution in establishing the appellant's sole responsibility for the fractures. The court noted that the agreed facts also left open the possibility that the fractures occurred during the first assault.

Consequently, the appeal was allowed on the basis that the finding regarding the cause of the fractures was not supported by the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. The court did not need to consider the appellant's further complaint about the adequacy of the sentencing judge's reasons for that finding.