R v Cekic; R v Ciantar; R v Dettman; R v Niemann; R v Paunovic

[2016] SASCFC 31

South Australia Full Court

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal and new trial
3. › Verdict unreasonable or insupportable having regard to evidence
4. › Circumstantial case
5. › Whether only rational inference was guilt
6. › Whether trial judge's inferences were open on the evidence
1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal and new trial
3. › Particular grounds of appeal
4. › Improper admission or rejection of evidence
5. › Hearsay
6. › Out-of-court written statements
7. › Whether notebook containing expressions of animosity admissible as circumstantial evidence
8. › Whether use was testimonial or non-testimonial
1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal and new trial
3. › Adequacy of reasons
4. › Trial by judge alone
5. › Whether judge gave separate consideration to case against each co-accused
6. › Whether judge adequately explained rejection of defence hypotheses
1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal and new trial
3. › Proviso
4. › Whether substantial miscarriage of justice actually occurred
5. › Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA), s 353(1)

Quick Take

A document displayed in a semi-public location (such as a notebook hanging in a clubhouse bar) may be admissible as circumstantial evidence of the state of affairs or sentiment within a group, without offending the hearsay rule, where the probative aspect is the display of negative sentiment rather than the truth of the assertions. However, such evidence may carry little weight where authorship and timing are unknown. In a circumstantial case involving joint criminal enterprise, the timing and sequence of events captured on CCTV footage, combined with the conduct and demeanour of co-offenders, may be sufficient to establish a common plan beyond reasonable doubt.