• Lawyers in Sydney
• Lawyers in Melbourne
• Lawyers in Brisbane
• Lawyers in Perth
• Family lawyers
• Employment lawyers
• Criminal lawyers
• Wills and estates lawyers
• Find a lawyer

What happened

On 3 February 2013 Adrian McDonald was shot three times at close range at approximately 6:36am while sitting in the front passenger seat of a Ford Futura at the Big Bucket Car Wash in Parafield, a northern suburb of Adelaide. Closed-circuit television footage captured McDonald entering the vehicle driven by his former partner, Tristan Kay Castle. Seconds later the first shot was fired as he attempted to exit; two further shots followed in quick succession, the third proving fatal. It was an admitted fact that the Ford belonged to Castle's mother and that she was driving.

The prosecution case was that Castle lured McDonald to the car wash on the pretext of renewing their sexual relationship. Jason Luke Bucca, with whom Castle had recently begun a sexual relationship, was said to have been concealed in the boot, having crawled into the passenger compartment after folding down a rear seat. Castle's liability was advanced on two bases: participation in a joint criminal enterprise with Bucca to kill or cause grievous bodily harm, or participation in a joint criminal enterprise to assault and detain McDonald while foreseeing that Bucca might shoot him with murderous intent. The prosecution emphasised that Castle must have known Bucca was armed.

Bucca and Wesley Gange, an associate, had harboured hostility toward McDonald after a break-in at their Sapphire Crescent premises on 31 January 2013 in which a fridge, laptop, boxing bag and weights were stolen. Castle had seen McDonald in the vicinity shortly beforehand and reported this to Bucca and Gange. Both men sent McDonald abusive text messages in the 48 hours preceding the shooting. All four principal actors—Castle, Bucca, Gange and Gange's partner "M"—were heavy users of methamphetamine ("ice").

The central issue at trial was whether the prosecution had excluded the reasonable possibility that Gange, rather than Bucca, was the shooter. Telephone tower records were pivotal. The mobile telephone known to be used by Gange (the "911 telephone") was not in the vicinity of the car wash at the time of the shooting; its signals were consistent with it remaining at the Gosfield Crescent premises, 12.4 kilometres away, where Gange and M were staying. M gave evidence that Gange had returned home before the shooting and that she recalled saying to him "thank fuck you were home by that time". M and Castle's accounts could not stand together.

Castle gave evidence that Gange had asked her to mediate the return of his stolen property. She denied any plan to lure McDonald. She said she drove to the car wash with Gange in the front passenger seat. When McDonald entered the vehicle an argument erupted about the break-in. As Castle began to drive away McDonald tried to exit; Gange produced a handgun and fired. Castle claimed she first learned Gange was armed when the shots were fired. She denied any prior knowledge or intention to harm McDonald. Bucca did not give evidence.

Tamara Pascoe, the daughter of one of McDonald's associates, gave evidence that a few days after the killing she overheard Bucca tell her father "he didn't mean to do it" while Bucca was crying and distraught. In cross-examination and re-examination Pascoe made clear that Bucca had not identified who "he" was and that she had formed no view as to whether Bucca was referring to himself or a third party. The prosecutor invited the jury to treat the statement as an admission by Bucca. The trial judge left the evidence to the jury without directing that it was incapable of being an admission and was in fact exculpatory.

The trial judge reminded the jury of aspects of M's evidence in terms the appellants later criticised as unduly favourable, including describing her as seeming "a fairly decent woman". His Honour did not summarise the salient parts of Castle's evidence, instead referring to it mainly through the prosecutor's criticisms and defence counsel's submissions. Both appellants were convicted of murder.

On appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal of South Australia the convictions were upheld. That Court found error in the treatment of Pascoe's evidence but applied the proviso to s 353(1) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA), concluding that no substantial miscarriage of justice had occurred because Castle's evidence was "so obviously false that it carries no weight at all" and the circumstantial case was overwhelming. Special leave was granted to appeal to the High Court on the proviso and on the admissibility of Pascoe's evidence that, some months earlier, Bucca had shown her father three handguns.

Why the court decided this way

The plurality (Kiefel, Bell, Keane and Nettle JJ, with Gageler J agreeing) held that the trial judge's failure to direct the jury that Bucca's statement to Pascoe was exculpatory, not an admission, gave rise to a perceptible risk of a miscarriage of justice. The statement was "unequivocally" exculpatory and consistent with the defence case that Gange was the shooter. Leaving it open to the jury to treat the words as a confession by Bucca that "he didn't mean to do it" created the possibility that the jury might convict on the strength of the statement alone or give it undue weight in a case that was otherwise wholly circumstantial.

The Court of Criminal Appeal had reasoned that the admission was a "minor part of the evidence" overwhelmed by six strands of circumstantial evidence, including telephone records placing Bucca's and Castle's phones at the car wash, motive, M's evidence of the plan, Castle's text messages, records and M's evidence placing Gange elsewhere, and the physical difficulty Gange would have had in hiding in the boot given his fused right arm. The High Court held this analysis erroneous. Proof that Bucca was the shooter and that Castle was complicit depended critically on acceptance of M's oral evidence. The telephone records showed only the probable location of the 911 telephone; they did not compel the conclusion that Gange was not at the car wash because he had access to multiple phones, used prepaid mobiles, and operated in the illegal drug milieu where he might deliberately leave a traceable phone behind. The reasonable possibility that Gange was the shooter therefore could not be excluded on the records alone.

Because the case turned on the assessment of oral evidence—particularly M's credibility and reliability—the "natural limitations" that apply to appellate review on the record prevented the Court of Criminal Appeal from being satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the jury would inevitably have convicted had the error not occurred. Satisfaction of guilt on the appellate record does not equate to satisfaction that no substantial miscarriage of justice actually occurred where the error might have affected the jury's deliberations. The plurality cited the principle in Weiss v The Queen that the proviso cannot cure an error if there is a real chance the result might have been different.

On the fairness of the summing-up the High Court held that Castle's case had been adequately left to the jury. Although the trial judge had not summarised her evidence in the same detail as the prosecution case, he had comprehensively reminded the jury of her counsel's submissions attacking the prosecution case and M's reliability. Castle was competently represented; no request had been made to remind the jury of specific passages of her evidence. The judge corrected his favourable remark about M and directed that impressions of witnesses were solely for the jury. The obligation stated in RPS v The Queen and the need for "judicial balance" (B v The Queen) were satisfied. Greater reference to Castle's evidence would merely have highlighted its inconsistencies with the objective evidence.

On admissibility the Court held that Pascoe's evidence of Bucca showing three handguns months earlier was discreditable conduct evidence within s 34P(1). In the context of the drug-using milieu the inference of unlawful possession was open. However the permissible use—demonstrating access to a handgun that might have been the murder weapon—had considerable probative value in a circumstantial prosecution where the identity of the shooter was the central issue and handguns are not commonplace. M had described a black handgun with a silver top resembling a Glock 17 shown by Bucca only weeks before the shooting. Either of the two black handguns Pascoe described could not be excluded as the murder weapon. The probative value substantially outweighed the prejudicial effect and the evidence could be kept distinct from any impermissible propensity reasoning. The trial judge had been "very firmly of the view" that it was admissible and the Court of Criminal Appeal had not erred in upholding that ruling. Because a new trial was ordered it was necessary to resolve this ground.

Gageler J added that the wrongly admitted confession evidence could not be dismissed as inconsequential; there was a real chance it made the difference between conviction and acquittal.

Before and after state of the law

Prior to Castle v The Queen the principles governing the proviso to s 353(1) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) were those stated in Weiss v The Queen (2005) 224 CLR 300. An appellate court was required to make its own assessment of the evidence, put the error aside, and ask whether, on that assessment, guilt was proved beyond reasonable doubt. If so, it could usually be concluded that no substantial miscarriage had occurred. Subsequent decisions had emphasised that satisfaction of guilt on the record does not automatically preclude a finding of substantial miscarriage, particularly where the error affects the way the jury might have evaluated the evidence.

The decision clarifies that where an error consists in leaving exculpatory evidence as capable of being a confession, and the prosecution case depends on acceptance of contested oral testimony, the natural limitations of appellate review preclude the conclusion that a reasonable jury would inevitably have convicted. The proviso cannot be applied merely because the appellate court regards the defence evidence as "glaringly improbable". The decision reinforces that the proviso inquiry is not a retrial on the papers but an assessment of the effect of the identified error on the actual trial outcome.

On summing-up, the decision applies long-standing principles from RPS v The Queen (2000) 199 CLR 638 and B v The Queen (1992) 175 CLR 599 without altering them. It confirms that a judge is not required to summarise every piece of an accused's evidence where a transcript is available and counsel has not requested further reference, provided the overall defence case is fairly put through counsel's submissions.

On s 34P of the Evidence Act 1929 (SA), the decision illustrates the operation of the section in a circumstantial murder case. It confirms that evidence of prior possession of weapons capable of being the murder weapon can be admitted where its probative force on access outweighs prejudice, even if the precise make and model cannot be matched. The judgment emphasises the need to keep the permissible use (access to a weapon) distinct from the impermissible use (propensity to murder). The law after the decision is that trial judges must expressly weigh the s 34P(2)(a) factors, but an absence of explicit reasons will not necessarily vitiate admission if the weighing was open.

Key passages with plain-English translation

At the heart of the proviso analysis the plurality stated: "It is a large step to conclude that a confession is unlikely to have influenced a jury's verdict notwithstanding that, apart from the admission, the prosecution presented a powerful circumstantial case. Here, the jury might have convicted on the strength of the admission alone in Bucca's case and largely on the strength of the admission in Castle's case." In plain English this means that once something is wrongly labelled a confession, you cannot easily say it did not matter; juries can hang their entire decision on a supposed admission even when the rest of the case is strong but circumstantial.

Later the Court observed: "The natural limitations of proceeding on the record precluded a conclusion that guilt was proved beyond reasonable doubt." This translates to: reading the transcript and watching CCTV is not the same as seeing and hearing witnesses give evidence live; an appeal court cannot be confident enough to say the jury was bound to convict when the outcome depended on whose oral account to believe.

On the summing-up the plurality said: "The complaint that Castle's case was not fairly left for the jury's consideration was not answered by concluding that the trial judge's observations reflected the strength of the prosecution evidence or that Castle's evidence failed to logically address the prosecution case. Whatever the shortcomings of Castle's evidence, she was entitled to have the case that she presented fairly put to the jury together with any other matter upon which the jury might properly have returned a verdict in her favour." Plain English: no matter how weak you think the defence story is, the judge must still give the jury a fair chance to accept it; you cannot dismiss the complaint by saying the Crown case was strong.

On the handgun evidence: "The fact that the prosecution could not prove that either weapon was the murder weapon did not deprive the evidence of probative value. ... Evidence that Bucca had access to a handgun that might have been the murder weapon possessed considerable probative value." Translation: you do not need to prove the gun Bucca showed months earlier was definitely the murder gun; showing he had access to that kind of gun in a world where guns are hard to get is relevant circumstantial evidence.

The Court quoted Brennan J in B v The Queen: "[The comment] must exhibit a judicial balance so that the jury is not deprived 'of an adequate opportunity of understanding and giving effect to the defence and the matters relied upon in support of the defence'." In plain English: if a judge comments on the evidence, he or she must stay even-handed so the jury still feels free to accept the defence.

What fact patterns trigger this precedent

This precedent is triggered in any criminal appeal where (1) an exculpatory out-of-court statement by an accused has been left to the jury as capable of amounting to an admission or confession, (2) the prosecution case is substantially circumstantial and depends on the jury accepting the evidence of one or more contested witnesses whose credibility cannot be fully assessed on the record, and (3) the appellate court is asked to apply the proviso. The decision makes clear that in such circumstances the natural limitations of appellate review will usually prevent the conclusion that no substantial miscarriage occurred.

It also applies where a trial judge's summing-up is challenged for imbalance. The precedent confirms that comprehensive reference to defence counsel's submissions, coupled with a clear direction that factual assessments are for the jury alone, will generally suffice even if the judge does not read out or summarise every aspect of the accused's testimony—particularly where the accused's evidence is inconsistent with objective evidence such as telephone records or CCTV.

The ruling on s 34P is engaged whenever the prosecution seeks to lead evidence that an accused was in possession of weapons, tools or other items that might have been used in the offence, even months earlier, in circumstances where the possession may have been unlawful. The fact pattern requires the trial judge to be satisfied that the permissible use (access or opportunity) can be kept logically separate from any suggestion that the accused is the sort of person who commits the charged offence. The precedent is particularly relevant in drug-related or gang-related violence cases where possession of firearms is common in the milieu but not ubiquitous in the general community.

How later courts have treated it

The judgment itself applies Weiss v The Queen while clarifying its interaction with the natural limitations of proceeding on the record in cases turning on oral evidence. It cites RPS v The Queen for the essential requirements of a summing-up and B v The Queen for the need for judicial balance, treating those authorities as settled law. The Court of Criminal Appeal's reasoning was distinguished on the basis that it had impermissibly substituted its own view of the "obvious falsity" of Castle's evidence for the jury's task and had failed to recognise the dependence of its guilt findings on M's disputed testimony.

The decision underscores that an appellate court's satisfaction that the circumstantial case is "powerful" or that defence evidence is "glaringly improbable" does not licence the application of the proviso where the identified error could have affected the jury's assessment of that very evidence. Subsequent appellate courts must therefore expressly address whether the error carried a real chance of affecting the outcome rather than simply re-weighing the evidence on the record.

Still-open questions

The judgment leaves open the precise boundary between a permissible comment on the strength of the prosecution case and an impermissible reversal of the onus of proof in a summing-up that repeatedly asks "what is the answer" the defence makes to "this apparently cogent analysis". Although the trial judge's rhetorical questions were ultimately cured by redirection, the plurality did not lay down a bright-line rule for when such language will require the jury to be discharged.

The interaction between s 34P(2)(a) and (b) in cases where the evidence is said to show both access to a weapon and a general propensity to carry illegal firearms remains incompletely explored. The Court noted that the evidence was not relied on as propensity to discharge firearms or threaten to do so, but did not decide whether evidence of repeated unlawful possession of different firearms would cross into the "strong probative value" requirement of s 34P(2)(b).

Finally, the decision assumes that the proviso analysis must take account of "natural limitations" whenever oral evidence is central, but does not specify the minimum content of those limitations or the circumstances in which CCTV, telephone records and other objective evidence might be so compelling that they overcome the limitations. Trial judges and intermediate appellate courts are left to apply the principle case-by-case, particularly where the disputed oral evidence is only one strand among many powerful objective circumstances.