Andrew DUNNE v Graham ABBOTT - [2020] NTLC 23

CITATION:Andrew DUNNE v Graham ABBOTT [2020] NTLC023
PARTIES:ANDREW DUNNE
V
GRAHAM ABBOTT

TITLE OF COURT:  LOCAL COURT
JURISDICTION:  CRIMINAL
FILE NO(s):21938390
DELIVERED ON:  1 July 2020
DELIVERED AT:  ALICE SPRINGS
HEARING DATE(s):  27 April 2020, 11 May 2020, 2 June 2020
JUDGMENT OF:  JUDGE HUNTINGFORD
CATCHWORDS:
Criminal Code Act
Burke v The Queen (1997) 96 A Crim R 334
S Odgers, Uniform Evidence Law, 14th ed, Lawbook Co, 2019, pp 550-558
R v Amatto [2011] NSWDC 194, [7]-[8] and JP v DPP (NSW) [2015] NSWSC 1669, [26]
Doney v The Queen
REPRESENTATION:
Counsel:
Complainant:     Ms Hayward
Defendant:Ms Bossard

Solicitors:
Complainant: DPP
Defendant:NAAJA

Judgment category classification:                B
Judgment ID number:  023
Number of paragraphs:  50

IN THE LOCAL COURT
AT DARWIN IN THE NORTHERN
TERRITORY OF AUSTRALIA

No. 21938390
BETWEEN
ANDREW DUNNE
Complainant
AND
GRAHAM ABBOTT
Defendant

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(Delivered 1 July 2020)
JUDGE HUNTINGFORD

The defendant, Graham Abbott is charged that on 31 August 2019 he:
a.unlawfully entered a building namely 14 Rieff Court, Alice Springs with an intent to commit an offence, namely stealing, and that entry involved two aggravating circumstances, firstly that the building was a dwelling house and, secondly, that the unlawful entry occurred at night, contrary to section 213 of the Criminal Code Act; and
b.stole alcohol and $180 Australian Currency valued at a total of $295, the property of Maxine and Glenn Baloban, contrary to Section 210 of the Criminal Code Act.
The defendant entered pleas of not guilty to the charges and the hearing commenced on 12 May 2020. The hearing concluded on 2 June 2020.
The prosecution case is that at about 10pm on 31 August 2019 the defendant entered the property at 14 Rieff Court, Alice Springs, through an unlocked kitchen door and stole 1 bottle of Bacardi, 1 bottle of gin and $180 in cash.
The prosecution relied upon the evidence of three witnesses, Mr Glenn Baloban, resident of 14 Rieff Court, who was at home when the entry and theft occurred, Senior Constable Sarah Brooks, crime scene examiner, and Mr Stephen Crocker, Principal Examiner, Forensic Science Branch, NT Police. Neither Mr Baloban nor S/C Brooks were required for cross-examination and their statutory declarations were admitted into evidence as exhibits P1 and P2 respectively. Mr Crocker, who is a fingerprint expert, was cross-examined at some length.
Mr Baloban’s unchallenged evidence is that around 10pm on 31 August 2019 he was in his room at 14 Rieff Court, a home in which he lives with his parents, Stephen and Maxine Baloban. He had the door closed and he was watching Netflix using earphones. Mr and Mrs Baloban were not at home. At about 10pm he heard dogs barking and, initially thinking it was his parents returning, he did not respond. After about two minutes, he opened the bedroom door and heard movement in the house, which sounded like people running off. He did not see anyone.
Mr Glenn Baloban inspected the house and noted that his mother’s mobile…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Andrew DUNNE v Graham ABBOTT and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2020] NTLC 23
Decision Date: 1 July 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant, Graham Abbott, was charged with unlawfully entering a building at 14 Rieff Court, Alice Springs, with intent to commit the offence of stealing, and stealing alcohol and $180 from the residence. The defendant pleaded not guilty to both charges. The case hinged on the evidence of fingerprint expert, Mr Stephen Crocker, who identified fingerprints found at the scene as being those of the defendant. The court had to determine whether fingerprint analysis qualified as an area of specialised knowledge and whether the evidence of Mr Crocker was based wholly or substantially on his specialised knowledge. The court also had to consider whether the evidence of Mr Crocker should be excluded for being unreliable or unfairly prejudicial to the defendant.

The court found that fingerprint analysis is indeed an area of specialised knowledge, based on Mr Crocker’s extensive experience and qualifications in the field. The court further found that Mr Crocker’s opinion was based wholly or substantially on his specialised knowledge as he applied the ACE-V methodology (Analyse, Compare, Evaluate, and Verify) to analyse the fingerprints. The court rejected the defendant's argument that fingerprint analysis was not sufficiently reliable to qualify as an area of specialised knowledge. The court found that Mr Crocker's evidence was not unfairly prejudicial or unreliable and was therefore admissible.

Considering the evidence as a whole, the court found that the defendant's fingerprints were found on the mobile phone and the broom at the crime scene, and that there was no reasonable explanation consistent with innocence as to how they came to be there. The court concluded that the defendant was guilty of both charges beyond reasonable doubt.

No orders were made in relation to unreliable evidence or the exclusion of evidence under sections 135 and 137 of the Evidence (National Uniform Legislation) Act 2011. The court found that the probative value of Mr Crocker’s evidence was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to the defendant. The court also found that the evidence supported the grounds for exclusion under sections 135 and 137 were not made out.

Orders