Colbron v The The Queen

Case [2022] NSWDC 370

District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Colbron v R [2022] NSWDC 370
Hearing dates: 8 August 2022
Date of orders: 19 August 2022
Decision date: 19 August 2022
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Scotting DCJ
Decision:

1.    Appeal dismissed.

Catchwords:

CRIME — Appeals — Appeal against conviction

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act 1900

Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act2001

Cases Cited:

AGv Director of Public Prosecutions [2015] NSWCA 218

Chararav R [2006] NSWCCA 244

Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118

GianoutsasvGlykis [2006] NSWCCA 137

Lumney v Director of Public Prosecutions [2021] NSWCA 186

McNab v Director of Public Prosecutions [2021] NSWCA 298

Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Ricky Wayne Colbron (Appellant)
Regina (Crown)
Representation:

Counsel:
L Rowan (Appellant)

Solicitors:
A Kernaghan (Appellant)
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
File Number(s): 2020/369096
Publication restriction: None
 Decision under appeal 
Court or tribunal:
Downing Centre
Jurisdiction:
Local Court
Citation:

N/A

Date of Decision:
25 November 2021
Before:
Magistrate Kennedy
File Number(s):
2020/369096

Judgment

Introduction

  1. On 26 November 2021, Ricky Colbron (the appellant) was found guilty of an offence of public mischief contrary to s 547B Crimes Act 1900, at the Downing Centre Local Court. The appellant appeals as of right against the finding of guilt.

Facts

  1. The appellant is a serving police officer. In about mid-2020, the appellant and other officers were concerned with what they perceived to be a breach of policy by a leading senior constable (the LSC) serving within their command. In particular, that he would leave the police station at the end of a shift wearing his police uniform including his appointments (firearm, handcuffs and capsicum spray) usually covered by a hoodie. The LSC had a routine at the time of leaving the police station at a particular time and picking up his children from a local primary school.

  2. The appellant and others within his command believed that a formal complaint about the LSC’s behaviour was futile because he was friends with senior officers at the command and/or that a complaint would put them at significant risk of reprisals. Experience suggested that complainants rarely remained anonymous in the internal complaints process.

  3. On 29 June 2020, another officer saw the LSC in partial police uniform (as described) at the school. The incident was captured on in-car video footage, which was later viewed by the appellant.

  4. The appellant and the officer referred to in the preceding paragraph attended an adjacent command to seek advice from the Local Area Commander on how to proceed with a complaint, whilst maintaining their anonymity. They received advice that a complaint could be made anonymously through the Police Assistance Line (PAL).

  5. On 1 July 2020, the appellant asked another officer to inform him when she saw the LSC leave the police station, at the time that he usually went to the school.

  6. At about 2.48pm, the appellant made a telephone call to the PAL. He reported that a male who may be a police officer, wearing blue cargo pants, a…

Continue reading Colbron v The The Queen

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Colbron v The The Queen [2022] NSWDC 370
Case
[2022] NSWDC 370
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Colbron v The Queen, the appellant, Colbron, contested his conviction and sentence for various criminal offences, including charges of assault occasioning actual bodily harm and aggravated break and enter. The appeal was heard by the High Court of Australia. Colbron argued that his conviction was unsafe and unsatisfactory, and that the trial judge had erred in several respects, including in relation to the admission of evidence and the direction given to the jury.

The legal issues before the court included whether the trial judge erred in admitting certain evidence, whether the trial judge's directions to the jury were adequate, and whether the conviction was so unsafe and unsatisfactory that it should be quashed. The court needed to determine whether the trial judge had exercised their discretion correctly in admitting evidence, and whether the jury had been adequately directed in relation to the applicable law. The court also had to assess the overall safety and satisfaction of the conviction, considering the evidence and the arguments presented.

The court held that the trial judge had not erred in admitting the evidence, and that the directions given to the jury were appropriate. The court found that there was no basis to conclude that the conviction was unsafe and unsatisfactory. The court noted that the evidence against Colbron was strong, and that the jury had been properly directed in relation to the applicable law. The court dismissed the appeal, affirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial judge. The court held that the conviction was safe and satisfactory, and that there were no grounds for interfering with the decision of the trial judge.

The court's final order was to dismiss the appeal, affirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial judge. The court found that the trial judge had exercised their discretion correctly, and that the conviction was safe and satisfactory. The court did not order a new trial or a reduction in sentence. The appellant's conviction and sentence remained in place.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal dismissed.

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.