Tipping v The King (No 2)

The appellant, Tipping, appealed his convictions for offences committed in 2015 and 2019. The appeal against conviction concerned the 2019 offending, where the appellant argued that the jury's verdict was unsafe due to the proximity of his trial to an earlier trial in which he was found guilty of aggravated assault. The appellant contended that this proximity created a risk of jury contamination and a consequential miscarriage of justice. The appeal against sentence concerned the sentences imposed for both the 2015 and 2019 offending. The matter was heard by Livesey P, Lovell and David JJ of the Supreme Court of South Australia.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the appellant had suffered a miscarriage of justice due to the risk of jury contamination arising from the close timing of his two trials. Specifically, the Court had to determine if the jury in the second trial could have been influenced by knowledge of the first trial, and if such influence could have realistically affected the guilty verdict. The Court also considered the adequacy of the jury directions given in the second trial and whether special precautions should have been implemented.

The Court applied the principle that a miscarriage of justice occurs if an error or irregularity is of a nature and degree that could realistically have affected the jury's verdict. The Court commenced from the presumption that jurors approach their tasks conscientiously and are capable of rendering verdicts based solely on admissible evidence, uninfluenced by extraneous considerations. While acknowledging the appellant's submission regarding the potential for contamination through overlapping jury panels, the Court found that the risk presented was speculative and not supported by evidence. Relying on established legal precedent, the Court held that the mere possibility of a juror acquiring irrelevant or prejudicial information is inherent in criminal trials, and the law presumes that juries will act in accordance with judicial instructions. The Court found that the jury directions provided were adequate and that the appellant, despite being advised of the risks, had elected to proceed with a jury trial.

The Court dismissed the appeal against conviction, finding no miscarriage of justice. The appeal against sentence was also dismissed.