THORP-MILLARD v The Queen

The appellant, Thorp-Millard, appealed his conviction for discharging a firearm to injure, annoy or frighten, contrary to s 32AA(1) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA), in the South Australian Court of Appeal. The conviction related to an incident where it was alleged the appellant discharged a firearm outside a residence on the first of two consecutive days. The appellant had also been charged with aggravated endangering life or, in the alternative, discharging a firearm to injure, annoy or frighten, in relation to the second incident, but was acquitted of these charges. The central dispute at trial was the identity of the offender, specifically whether the prosecution had proven the appellant discharged the firearm on each occasion.

The sole ground of appeal was that the jury's verdict of guilty on the first count was unreasonable and unsupported by the evidence. The appellant argued that his acquittal on the third count (relating to the second incident) rendered the guilty verdict on the first count inconsistent and incapable of rational explanation. This was because the appellant contended that satisfaction of guilt on the first count relied on the jury accepting the identification of the appellant as the offender for both incidents, and the acquittal on the third count indicated the jury were not so satisfied.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that it was open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the appellant's guilt on the first count. The Court found that there was a relatively strong circumstantial case against the appellant for the first incident, including evidence of his access to a vehicle consistent with that used by the offender, CCTV footage placing him in such a vehicle proximate to the offence, and evidence of motive stemming from animosity towards the victim. The Court also determined that there was a clear and sufficient basis for reconciling the guilty verdict on the first count with the acquittal on the third count, meaning the verdicts were not factually or logically inconsistent.