Darryl Andrew Hanel v Joel Shoemark

Darryl Andrew Hanel appealed to the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory against his conviction in the Magistrates Court for damage to property not exceeding $1,000, following an appeal from a single judge of the Supreme Court. The dispute concerned whether the prosecution had proven all elements of the offence under section 116(3) of the *Crimes Act 1900* (ACT).

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the prosecution had adduced sufficient evidence to prove that the value of the property damaged did not exceed $1,000. The offence, as defined by the legislation, hinges on the value of the property itself, not the extent of the damage caused to it.

The Court reasoned that the prosecution bore the onus of proving every element of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt. In the Magistrates Court, no evidence was presented to establish the value of the property that was damaged. Consequently, a crucial element of the offence under section 116(3) of the *Crimes Act 1900* (ACT) remained unproven.

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, the orders of the single judge were set aside, and the conviction and other orders made by the Magistrate were also set aside. The charge was dismissed.