Walters v The King

[2024] SASCA 53

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA

(Court of Appeal: Criminal)

WALTERS v THE KING

[2024] SASCA 53

Judgment of the Court of Appeal  

(The Honourable Chief Justice Kourakis, the Honourable Justice Lovell and the Honourable Justice Kimber)

2 May 2024

CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE - APPEAL DISMISSED

CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE - GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE - SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE

CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON - HOMICIDE - MANSLAUGHTER - OTHER ACTS OR OMISSIONS RESULTING IN DEATH

This was an appeal against conviction entered, and an application for permission to appeal against sentence imposed, for manslaughter by unlawful and dangerous act.

Following a trial by judge alone, the appellant was acquitted of the murder, but convicted of the manslaughter, of the victim, consequent upon a physical altercation at the residence of a third-party over a bottle of whisky. The prosecution’s case, which depended in large part on the testimony of observers of that altercation, was that the appellant, enraged by the victim’s belligerence, had engaged in a prolonged assault, over the course of approximately four hours, of the victim that culminated in the victim’s death. Expert forensic pathological evidence adduced by the prosecution posited a number of potential causes of the victim’s death, each of which was attributed to the prolonged assault inflicted on the victim by the appellant. As at the time of his death, the victim suffered from a multitude of physical disabilities and ailments, and both he and the appellant were heavily intoxicated with alcohol and other illicit substances.

At the trial, the appellant had contended that the injuries precipitating the victim’s death were not caused by his assault thereof, but were instead attributable to the victim repeatedly falling over himself while attempting to attack the appellant. On appeal, the appellant contended that the verdict delivered by the trial judge was unreasonable insofar as it rejected his submission that the injuries substantially contributing to the victim’s death were self-inflicted. The appellant also sought to agitate on appeal that, in the event that his appeal against conviction was dismissed, the sentence imposed by the trial judge was either manifestly excessive or predicated on an error of fact that impacted the assessment of the objective seriousness of the offending.

Held (per the Court), dismissing the appeal against conviction and granting permission to appeal, but dismissing the appeal, against sentence:

1.On an independent assessment of the evidence, the trial judge’s verdict was not unreasonable. Although no precise forensic cause of death could be isolated, the injuries inflicted by the appellant on the victim, jointly and severally, were voluntary, unlawful, dangerous, and substantially contributed to the victim’s death.

2.In circumstances where the offending of which the appellant was convicted involved the protracted and violent assault of an older, sickly, intoxicated, and debilitated man, and in light of the appellant’s poor prospects of rehabilitation, the sentence imposed by…