Director of Public Prosecutions v Campbell - [2023] ACTSC 307

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	DPP v Campbell
Citation:	[2023] ACTSC 307
Hearing Dates:	9 – 12, 17 October 2023
Decision Date:	30 October 2023
Before:	Taylor J
Decision:	The verdicts are as follows: 1․ Count 1: Attempted aggravated robbery – guilty. 2․ Count 2: Assault occasioning actual bodily harm – guilty. 3․ Count 3: Damage property – guilty. 4․ CC2022/4945: Possess weapon with intent – guilty
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE –Judgment – judge-alone verdict – guilty – attempted aggravated robbery – assault occasioning actual bodily harm –damage property – possess weapon with intent – identity of the accused in issue – direct evidence of recognition of accused by complainant – reliability of complainant’s identification – supported by circumstantial evidence – CCTV footage – DNA evidence – Murray direction – complaint evidence
Legislation Cited:	Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), ss 310, 403(2) Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), ss 24, 381 Evidence Act 2011 (ACT), ss 60, 138 Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1991 (ACT), s 68 Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT), s 90B Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT), ss 68B, 68C
Cases Cited:	R v Murray (1987) 11 NSWLR 12; 30 A Crim R 315
Parties:	Director of Public Prosecutions ( Crown) Aaron Kenneth Campbell ( Accused)
Representation:	Counsel C Diggins ( Crown) K Musgrove ( Accused)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions ( Crown) Briggs Law ( Accused)
File Numbers:	SCC 235 of 2022 SCC 236 of 2022 SCC 238 of 2022

TAYLOR J:

Introduction

1․This is a trial by judge alone after the accused, Aaron Kenneth Campbell signed an election on 12 April 2022 to be tried by judge alone pursuant to s 68B of the Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT) (the Supreme Court Act).
2․The accused has been charged with the following offences on an indictment dated 24 October 2022:
(a)Count 1: Attempt aggravated robbery contrary to s 310 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) (the Criminal Code).
(b)Count 2: Assault occasioning actual bodily harm contrary to s 24 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) (the Crimes Act).
(c)Count 3: Property damage contrary to s 403(2) of the Criminal Code.

3․In addition one offence has been transferred to this court pursuant to s90B of the Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT):
(a)CC2022/4945: Possess weapon with intent contrary to s 381 of the Crimes Act.

4․On 9 October 2023 the trial commenced before me after the accused was arraigned and pleaded not guilty to all of the charges. On 17 October 2023 I retired to consider my verdicts and now provide the following reasons which, consistent with s 68C(2) of the Supreme Court Act, include the principles of law I have applied and the findings of fact that I have made.

Summary of the prosecution case

5․In the early hours of 11 February 2022 the complainant drove his vehicle to a car wash in Calwell, ACT. He arrived there…

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 Director of Public Prosecutions v Campbell

Details

AGLC: Director of Public Prosecutions v Campbell [2023] ACTSC 307
Case: [2023] ACTSC 307
Decision Date: 30 October 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Director of Public Prosecutions v Campbell involved the Director of Public Prosecutions prosecuting Campbell on multiple charges, including attempted aggravated robbery, assault occasioning actual bodily harm, damage to property, and possession of a weapon with intent. The case was heard in the relevant Australian court, which must be determined from the context or further information. The central issue in the case was the identification of the accused, Campbell, by the complainant, and the reliability of this identification when corroborated by other forms of evidence. The court was tasked with determining whether the complainant's identification of Campbell, supported by CCTV footage and DNA evidence, was reliable and sufficient to uphold the charges against him.

The court examined the reliability of the complainant’s identification, considering both the direct evidence of recognition and the circumstantial evidence available. The complainant’s identification was deemed reliable as it was consistent and supported by CCTV footage and DNA evidence. The court concluded that the identification was sufficiently reliable to convict Campbell on the charges brought against him. Additionally, the court considered the Murray direction in relation to the complainant's evidence, ensuring that it was evaluated properly and the jury was adequately guided in assessing its credibility.

In its judgment, the court found Campbell guilty on all charges. The verdicts were as follows: guilty on Count 1 for attempted aggravated robbery, guilty on Count 2 for assault occasioning actual bodily harm, guilty on Count 3 for damage to property, and guilty on CC2022/4945 for possessing a weapon with intent. The court's decision was based on the reliable identification of Campbell by the complainant, corroborated by CCTV footage and DNA evidence, which together provided a comprehensive basis for the convictions.

Orders

Orders of the court

The verdicts are as follows:

1․ Count 1: Attempted aggravated robbery – guilty.

2․ Count 2: Assault occasioning actual bodily harm – guilty.

3․ Count 3: Damage property – guilty.

4․ CC2022/4945: Possess weapon with intent – guilty

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.