Part One: Grounds for Appeal
Prosecution counsel submission:
The Prosecution has identified two issues with regards to the specific conduct of the Learned Magistrate, which can form grounds for appeal.
1. The Learned Magistrate has erred in finding that there is no case to answer due to the weight given to the evidence adduced by the Prosecution.
a. A Learned Magistrate can rule that there is no case to answer if they are not satisfied that the Prosecution has adduced evidence which establish each element of the offence, and if the evidence as it stands, can lawfully convict the defendant.
b. The Prosecution has adduced prima facie evidence as the evidence can establish each element of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt.
i. A person
…show more content…
The Prosecution has admitted evidence that Mr Harry Grande has stated something to WorkCover and to a registered person. The Prosecution has adduced a signed statement submitted to WorkCover by Mr Grande, which states that his injury occurred at work due to an incident involving his boss, Mr Frederick Palmer.
2. In addition, a recorded audio interview admitted by the Prosecution, features Mr Grande making a statement about his injuries to Ms Judith Sloan, who is a registered person under the Act. As such, there is sufficient evidence to establish that Mr Grande has stated something to WorkCover and to a registered person.
iii. The person knows is false or misleading in a material particular
1. Three direct witnesses have been called upon by the Prosecution to give oral evidence to establish that Mr Grande knew the statement he was giving, was false and misleading. The Prosecution called Mr Frederick Palmer, who is accused of grabbing Mr Grande, to recall his version of events. Mr Palmer rejected Mr Grande’s version of events and stated that he did not grab Mr Grande’s arm.
2. To collaborate, the Prosecution called Jack Simple and George McPhee as they were witnesses to the entire incident. Mr Simple and Mr McPhee stated that Mr Grande was not injured by Mr Palmer, and they did not observe Mr Grande experiencing any problems with his
…show more content…
The Defence Counsel can adopt this position as Mr Grande has presumed innocence until the Prosecution can prove that all elements of the offence in question, have been satisfied. This is due to the Prosecution having the persuasive onus and evidential burden to adduce sufficient evidence to prove that Mr Grande is guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
In addition, the failure of Mr Grande to give evidence does not have an adverse inference for his case. The silence of Mr Grande does not constitute as an admission of guilt, and cannot be used to strengthen the Prosecution case.
However, the silence of Mr Grande may have negative consequences on his case. The Prosecution may argue specific facts that can explain the evidence against the defendant, and that can only be contradicted by Mr Grande. The failure of Mr Grande to contradict the evidence may influence the jury on their findings.
If Mr Grande is called upon by the Defence Counsel to give evidence, it is likely that the evidence gathered will not assist his case. The possible statement made by Mr Grande may weaken his case unless the Defence Counsel can adduce additional evidence to discredit the the accounts of the three