Camara v The Queen - [2021] NSWDC 317

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Camara v R [2021] NSWDC 317
Hearing dates: 15 July 2021
Decision date: 15 July 2021
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Haesler SC DCJ
Decision:
The appeal is upheld. The conviction is set aside

Catchwords:
APPEAL - Appeal against conviction
CRIME - Break Enter and Steal
CRIMINAL LAW − Evidence − DNA evidence − Where appellant's DNA obtained from object found at crime scene − Whether DNA evidence sufficient to establish beyond reasonable doubt appellant's presence at, and participation in, crime committed.

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001
Evidence Act 1995

Cases Cited:
Bryon v R [2015] 2 CrAppR 21
Charara v The Queen (2006) 164 A Crim R 39
Fitzgerald v The Queen [2014] HCA 28
Grant v R [2008] EWCA Crim 1890
Ogden v R [2013] EWCA 1294
Plomp v The Queen (2007) 228 CLR 618
R v FNC [2016] 1 Cr AppR 13
The Queen v Hillier [2007] HCA 13; (2007) 228 CLR 618
Tsekiri v R [2017] EWCA Crim 40

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Danny Camara (Appellant)
Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent)
Representation: Solicitors:
Mr M Kwan, Legal Aid NSW (for the appellant)
Ms K McCrossin (for the respondent)

File Number(s): 2020/00288068
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

Wollongong Local Court

Jurisdiction:

Local Court, Crime

Date of Decision:

18 May 2021

Before:

Pearce ALCM

File Number(s):

2020/00288068

Judgment

Introduction

On Monday 31 August 2019 the tenant of factory at 131 Five Islands Road, Cringila returned to find the large gate at the premises had been removed from its hinges. His shed had been broken into. Tools and equipment worth about $5,000 had been stolen from it. Next to the gate was his large shifting spanner. He recognised it as his own; when he left the premises the Friday before, the spanner had been inside the shed.
A Crime Scene Officer (CSO) attended and photographed the spanner where it was found. A tape lift was taken from the handle. That tape lift was sent to the NSW Forensic Science Service (FASS) for processing and DNA analysis. The CSO found not identifiable fingerprints on the spanner or at the scene.
On 6 October 2020 Danny Camara went to Lake Illawarra Police Station. He was asked about the break and enter. The arresting officer noted that Camara ”appeared to be confused and did not know what I was talking about.”
Camara was arrested and charged with break enter and steal at the Five Islands Road property: s 112(1) (a) Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). He consented to a buccal swab DNA sample being taken from him. That sample was sent to FASS for analysis.
On 11 February 2021 Mr Mahoney, a FASS analyst, provide a report that set out the results of his comparison between the DNA profile from Camara and that obtained from the tape-lift of the spanner.

“The DNA recovered is a mixture that originates from a least three individuals. The major contributor to…

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.

Continue reading Camara v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Camara v The Queen [2021] NSWDC 317
Case: [2021] NSWDC 317
Decision Date: 15 July 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of Australia, Camara appeals against his conviction for break, enter, and steal. The appellant was found guilty of breaking into a house and stealing property from within. The case has been brought to the High Court for review of the sufficiency of the DNA evidence used against him. The central issue before the court was whether the DNA evidence, which was obtained from an object found at the crime scene, was sufficient to establish beyond reasonable doubt the appellant's presence at the crime scene and his participation in the crime committed. The court considered the admissibility and weight of the DNA evidence, particularly in relation to the circumstances in which the DNA was collected and the potential for contamination or error. The court found that the DNA evidence, while suggestive, was not sufficiently reliable to support a conviction beyond reasonable doubt given the circumstances of the case. The court emphasised the need for a high degree of certainty in criminal convictions, particularly when relying on scientific evidence. As a result, the appeal was upheld, and the conviction was set aside. The case highlights the importance of stringent standards when evaluating scientific evidence in criminal trials.

Orders

Orders of the court

The appeal is upheld. The conviction is set aside

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Medium Neutral Citation:	Camara v R [2021] NSWDC 317
Hearing dates:	15 July 2021
Decision date:	15 July 2021
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Haesler SC DCJ
Decision:	The appeal is upheld. The conviction is set aside
Catchwords:	APPEAL - Appeal against conviction CRIME - Break Enter and Steal CRIMINAL LAW − Evidence − DNA evidence − Where appellant's DNA obtained from object found at crime scene − Whether DNA evidence sufficient to establish beyond reasonable doubt appellant's presence at, and participation in, crime committed.
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 Evidence Act 1995
Cases Cited:	Bryon v R [2015] 2 CrAppR 21 Charara v The Queen (2006) 164 A Crim R 39 Fitzgerald v The Queen [2014] HCA 28 Grant v R [2008] EWCA Crim 1890 Ogden v R [2013] EWCA 1294 Plomp v The Queen (2007) 228 CLR 618 R v FNC [2016] 1 Cr AppR 13 The Queen v Hillier [2007] HCA 13; (2007) 228 CLR 618 Tsekiri v R [2017] EWCA Crim 40
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Danny Camara (Appellant) Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent)
Representation:	Solicitors: Mr M Kwan, Legal Aid NSW (for the appellant) Ms K McCrossin (for the respondent)
File Number(s):	2020/00288068
Decision under appeal	Court or tribunal: Wollongong Local Court Jurisdiction: Local Court, Crime Date of Decision: 18 May 2021 Before: Pearce ALCM File Number(s): 2020/00288068