Director of Public Prosecutions v Cross (No 3)

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	DPP v Cross (No 3)
Citation:	[2025] ACTSC 292
Hearing Date:	12 June 2025 – 13 June 2025, 16 June 2025 – 18 June 2025
Decision Date:	11 July 2025
Before:	Taylor J
Decision:	See [343].
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – trial by judge alone – verdict – recklessly inflict grievous bodily harm – act endangering life – unauthorised use of firearm – circumstantial case – reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence –
verdicts of not guilty
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), ss 20, 23, 25, 27(3)(d), 49 Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s 3E
Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1991 (ACT), s 68 Evidence Act 2011 (ACT), ss 137, 191 Firearms Act 1996 (ACT), s 43(1)(a)(iii)
Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT), ss 66B, 68C(2), s 68C(3)
Cases Cited:	Director of Public Prosecutions v Cristy Lee Holder [2022] ACTSC 336; 103 MVR 30
DPP v Cross (No 2) [2025] ACTSC 291 Festa v The Queen [2001] HCA 72; 208 CLR 593
R v Hillier [2007] HCA 13; 228 CLR 618
Parties:	Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Bronson Cross (Accused)
Representation:	Counsel
N Deakes (Crown)
E Chen (Accused)
Solicitors
ACT Director of Public Prosecutions
Legal Aid ACT (Accused)
File Number:	SCC 248 of 2024
TAYLOR J:
Introduction
1․	This is a trial by judge alone after the accused, Mr Bronson Cross, signed an election on
23 October 2024 to be tried by judge alone pursuant to s 66B of the Supreme Court Act
1933 (ACT).
2․	The accused was charged with the following offences on an indictment dated 3
September 2024:

(a) Count 1 (CC2024/172): recklessly inflict grievous bodily harm contrary to s 20
of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT).

(b) Count 2 (CC2024/5222): act endangering life contrary to s 27(3)(d) of the
Crimes Act.

(c) Count 3 (CC2024/4970): unauthorised use of firearm contrary to s 43(1)(a)(iii)
of the Firearms Act 1996 (ACT).

3․	Pursuant to s 49 of the Crimes Act, if I am not satisfied that the accused is guilty of Count
1, he may instead be found guilty of the alternative offence of inflicting actual bodily harm
(contrary to s 23 of the Crimes Act) or causing grievous bodily harm (contrary to s 25 of
the Crimes Act).
4․	On 6 May 2025 the prosecution filed an application in proceeding to vary or waive pre-
trial disclosure. On 21 May 2025, the prosecution filed an amended application seeking
requirements only to waive pre-trial disclosure requirements. The application was
opposed and on 10 June 2025 I dismissed it: see DPP v Cross (No 2) [2025] ACTSC
291.
5․	The trial commenced on 12 June 2025, the accused having previously been arraigned
and entered pleas of not guilty to each count.
6․	In considering my verdict, I must take into account any warning or direction which would
have been given, or any comment which would have been made, to a jury in the
proceedings should this matter have been tried before a jury pursuant to s 68C(3) of the
Supreme Court Act. The directions I have applied are recorded in Annexure A.
7․	In accordance with s 68C(2) of the Supreme Court Act, I now provide the following
reasons which include the principles of law I have applied and the findings of fact that I
have made. For the reasons that follow, the accused is not guilty on each count on the
indictment.

Prosecution case

8․	The prosecution alleged that on 1 May 2024 the accused discharged a firearm in the
presence of FN and FT, causing serious injuries to FN which required surgical
intervention. At the time he discharged the firearm, the accused did not have a licence
to use or possess it.
9․	In his opening address the prosecutor comprehensively outlined the prosecution case
as follows.
10․	At the time of the shooting, the accused and HN were known to each other having first
met in primary school. The accused and HN had a fight which included a physical
altercation approximately one to two years prior to the shooting.
11․	FT and the accused were also known to each other, having met a few times several
years prior to the shooting. In April 2024, FT was at a friend’s house and saw the accused
in possession of a firearm.
12․	Just before 1am on 1 May 2024, HN and FT were standing on George St in Oaks Estate,
ACT. FT observed a small orange coloured vehicle without registration plates drive past.
The vehicle was a gold-coloured Nissan Micra. The vehicle turned around and drove
back towards them, travelling at a slow speed. The accused exited the vehicle. He was
wearing a light-coloured jumper, dark-coloured pants and a face covering. FT recognised
the accused based on his height, build, face and voice. The accused had a long firearm
in his hand.
13․	The accused approached HN and FT and said, “is that you HN?”. HN responded yes.
Words were exchanged between the two men whilst FT hid behind a tree. The accused
said words to the effect of, “do you want to get fucking shot?”.
14․	HN told the accused that were police in the next street. HN knew this because police
were at his brother’s house executing a search warrant. The accused discharged the
firearm in the direction of FN and yelled “motherfucker”. At the time he discharged the
firearm, the accused was approximately five metres away from HN and FT. The accused
got back in the vehicle and drove away.
15․	HN and FT ran to Mr Brett Clarke’s house. Mr Garry Clarke, Brett Clarke’s father was at
the residence, and he soon transported HN to the hospital. HN immediately identified the
person who had shot him to be the accused.
16․	HN had numerous puncture wounds across his body as well as shotgun pellets lodged
in his body. HN suffered from a pneumothorax (collapsed lung) and required surgery to
remove some of the pellets.

Agreed facts and other evidence tendered by the consent

17․	Pursuant to s 191 of the Evidence Act 2011 (ACT), the following facts were agreed:

(a) In documents “DR010938 – CCR SMS – Optus – Service Number [Redacted]–
Result Attachment” and ‘DR010939 – CCR – Optus – Service Number –
[Redacted] – Result Attachment” the reference to number A is the phone
number where the communication originates from and the reference to number
B indicates the phone number that receives the communication.

(b) The on-screen display time of the CCTV taken from Winchester Place is set 1
hour, 8 minutes, and 58 seconds behind real time.

(c) The on-screen display time of the CCTV taken from George Street is set
approximately 1 hour behind real time.

18․	The following material was tendered by consent.

Statement and Evidence Recovery Summary Report of Dr Latara Rust

19․	Dr Rust is a forensic chemist with the Australian Federal Police (AFP).
20․	Dr Rust’s Evidence Recovery Summary Report related to examinations conducted on
two balaclavas. These examinations included a DNA tape lift and the collection of
gunshot residue (GSR) “stubs” from each of the balaclavas. Additionally, a “piece of
circular red apparent rubber” was retrieved from the first balaclava. An animal hair and
a human hair were retrieved from the second balaclava.
21․	Each of the samples recovered from the balaclavas were sent for further “triaging and
assessment”.

Statement and Biology Court Report of Jennifer Stone

22․	Ms Stone is a senior forensic biologist with the AFP.
23․	In her Biology Court Report, Ms Stone identified that a mixed DNA profile from at least
two individuals was obtained from the DNA tape lift taken from the interior of the first
balaclava. Ms Stone provided a likelihood ratio which identified that it was at least 100
billion times more likely that the accused was one of the two contributors to the mixed
DNA profile than if the profile originated from two unknown persons.
24․	In respect to the DNA tape lift taken from the interior of the second balaclava, Ms Stone
similarly identified that a mixed DNA profile from at least two individuals was obtained.
Ms Stone again provided a likelihood ratio which identified that it was at least 100 billion times more likely that the accused was one of the two contributors to the mixed DNA
profile.
25․	Ms Stone concluded that there was “extremely strong support” for the proposition that
the accused was a contributor to the DNA profiles obtained from the tape lifts on the
interior of each of the balaclavas.

Statement and Examination of Paint Samples Report of Vincent Otieno-Alego

26․	Mr Otieno-Alego is a forensic chemist with the AFP. He undertook examinations on
various paint samples collected from the ‘Nissan Micra’, specifically:

(a) Black paint on front bumper car;
(b) Black paint on front driver’s side quarter panel;
(c) Black paint on front driver’s side door;
(d) Orange reference from front driver’s side door;
(e) Black paint from rear driver’s side quarter panel;
(f) Black paint from boot;
(g) Black paint from rear passenger’s side door;
(h) Black paint from front passenger’s quarter panel

27․	Mr Otieno-Alego also conducted examinations on the following paint samples collected
from [redacted] Boronia Crescent, Karabar, NSW:

(i) Spray can – ‘SPRAY MARK’

(j) Black spray paint can
(k) Matt black spray paint can

28․	The purpose of the testing undertaken by Mr Otieno-Alego was to ascertain whether any
of the black paint samples recovered from the Nissan Micra came from any of the spray
paint cans submitted for comparison.
29․	Mr Otieno-Alego found that the samples recovered from the front bumper, front driver’s
side door, rear driver’s side quarter panel, boot and the front passenger’s quarter panel
of the Nissan Micra could not be differentiated from the black paint contained in the ‘matt
black spray paint can’ collected from [redacted] Boronia Crescent. The black paint
samples recovered from the front driver’s side quarter panel and the rear passenger’s
side door of the Nissan Micra did not come from any of the used spray paint cans
submitted for comparison.
30․	Mr Otieno-Alego concluded that the results supported the proposition that the paint from
the ‘matt black spray can’ collected from [redacted] Boronia Crescent, Karabar was used
to paint the Nissan Micra.

Statement and Gunshot Residue Examination Report of Nicholas Lucas

31․	Mr Lucas is a forensic chemist with the AFP.
32․	Mr Lucas was provided with three samples for testing. The first sample was “GSR stubs”
collected from the first balaclava, the second sample was “GSR stubs” collected from
the second balaclava, and the third sample was “GSR stubs” collected from a grey
hooded jumper.
33․	Mr Lucas identified that “nil particles characteristic or indicative of GSR were detected
on the samples” collected from each of the balaclavas and the corresponding control
samples. Similarly, “nil particles characteristic of GSR were detected on the samples
collected from the left-hand side of the Grey Hooded Jumper”. A single particle indicative
of GSR was detected on the sample from the left-hand side of the grey hooded jumper
however “detection of a small population of particles of this type in isolation cannot be
considered supportive of firearm association”.
34․	Mr Lucas concluded that the GSR evidence does not support the proposition that the
two balaclavas or the grey hooded jumper “has had a firearm association”. Mr Lucas
noted that the absence of particles characteristic and indicative of GSR may be the result
of:

(a) The item not having had a firearm association;
(b) No GSR being deposited during a firearm association;
(c) GSR being deposited, but outside the areas of the item that were sampled;
(d) GSR being deposited but subsequently being removed or redistributed prior to
sampling;

(e) The random sampling process not collecting any GSR that had been deposited
on the item; or

(f) GSR being present on the sample at levels below the limit of detection of the
instrumentation used in this examination.

Statement and report of Alixandra Chan

35․	Ms Chan is a crime scene investigator with the AFP.
36․	At about 7:56am on 1 May 2024, Ms Chan attended [redacted] George St, Oaks Estate.
On arrival she observed a police cordon sectioning off an area in front of a residential
unit block. A visual search was conducted in the police cordon. A marker and forensic
exhibit number were placed adjacent to what “appeared to be plastic wadding or similar”
located on the ground. The item was photographed and collected.

Medical Report of Dr Amanda Barry

37․	Dr Barry is a medical practitioner who was requested to prepare a report in relation to
HN. She herself did not examine or treat HN, however she was provided with a bundle
of medical records from both the Canberra Hospital and the Queanbeyan Hospital
following his admission on 1 May 2024.
38․	Dr Barry recorded the following findings in relation to HN’s injuries:

(a) HN reported being shot once with a shotgun on 1 May 2024
(b) HN sustained injuries as a result of metallic pellets penetrating the following
regions:
1․ The right maxillary sinus resulting in maxillary (cheek) bone fracture and
bleeding into the right maxillary sinus.
2․ The right eye with a metallic fragment subsequently being lodged in the
posterior right orbit (in the bone behind the right eye).

3․ Adjacent to vascular structures including the superior vena cava, left internal
jugular vein, left external jugular vein, and branches of the right maxillary
artery and facial artery.
4․ The left carotid artery sheath.
5․ The right lung resulting in a hemopneumothorax and lung bruising. A chest
drain was inserted to treat this injury.
6․ The nasal septum.
7․ Both sides of his chest wall.
8․ Ride side of the abdomen.
9․ Right upper limb.

(c) HN required wound washout, exploration, debridement of the face, neck and
chest under general anaesthetic on 3 May 2024 to mitigate the risk of wound
infection and to extricate retrievable metallic pellets.
1․ The metallic pellet located in the left carotid sheath had the potential to
cause life threatening haemorrhage and/or nerve damage due to potential
erosion into critical underlying structures. This pellet was removed and the
fibrous sheath was repaired. There was no underlying vascular injury.

2․ Metallic pellets remain present adjacent to the superior vena cava (largest
vein in the body) and the additional critical blood vessels and nerves as the
risk of pellet removal outweighed the benefit of retrieval.
3․ HN has a residual metallic pellet located in the bone behind his right eye. A
finding of a “linear streak artefact” was reported through the right eye and
this was most likely caused by a metallic pellet travelling through the right
eye.
4․ HN has residual metallic pellets located in his face, chest wall, right lung,
abdomen and right upper limb.

(d) The metallic pellets are a result of gunshot trauma and could have caused all of
the aforementioned injuries in the manner and time frame described.

(e) HN will have the following permanent repercussions as a result of his
injuries/interventions:

1․ Permanent metallic foreign bodies located in his face, neck, chest wall, right
lung, abdomen and right upper limb.

2․ Permanent scarring of his face, neck, chest abdomen and right upper limb.

(f) HN may have the following long-lasting sequelae:

1․ Possible vascular and nerve complications due to foreign body erosion into
vital neck structures.
2․ Possible chronic pain of the face, neck, chest, abdomen and right upper
limb.

3․ Possible chronic right sided sinusitis.
4․ Psychological repercussions secondary to the traumatic event. Further
comment on potential short term and long-term psychological effects should
be addressed by a psychiatrist or psychologist.

(g) HN received highly specialised medical care to treat his injuries and specific
questions may require input from specialist medical and surgical experts in
these fields of practice. In particular:
1․ Comment regarding the future risk of complications from foreign body
presence in locations adjacent to vascular and nerve structures, including
possible injury to these structures, can be sought from a vascular surgeon.

2․ Comment regarding the potential for future eye and vision complications can
be sought from an ophthalmologist.
3․ Comment regarding the potential need for further facial surgery, long-term
facial deformity and possible fragment retrieval can be sought from an oral
and maxillofacial.

Transcript of Record of Conversation of Bronwyn Spackman

39․	Ms Spackman partook in a record of interview with the informant in this matter. The
transcript of that record of interview was tendered by consent of the parties.
40․	Bronwyn Spackman is a resident of George St in Oaks Estate who heard what sounded
to be a shot, a male voice, and a car screaming down the street three to four minutes
after the shot.
41․	Ms Spackman said that not long after midnight she heard what sounded like a shot, and
a male voice which said the ‘full expletive” which was “get fucked”. Ms Spackman said
she subsequently came to the window, and it was “all quiet”.
42․	She stated that the male voice was “cranky” and had an angry tone, confirming she only
heard the one voice. Ms Spackman said that a car then came screaming up the street
within three to four minutes of the shot.
43․	Ms Spackman said that this event was not long after she had turned off her light and laid
down to go to sleep, however she had not gone to sleep yet. She said she looked at her
phone as she turned the off the light, and her phone had indicated the time was 1 minute
to midnight, and that she had heard the shot about fifteen to thirty minutes thereafter at
a maximum estimation, whilst she was “drifting off”.
44․	She described the shot as a bang, not a pop. She further described the sound as a
louder, more solid sound than when she had heard people shooting and it went “pop”.
45․	Ms Spackman said there was no reverberation afterwards, it was just a ‘bang’.
46․	She then came and looked out the window but could not see anybody.

Statement and Property Seizure Record of Detective Seargent Christopher Watson

47․	Christopher Watson is a Detective Seargeant with the AFP, attached to the criminal
investigations, major crime squad at Tuggeranong police station. Detective Seargeant Watson was involved the execution of a search warrant at [redacted] Winchester Place,
Karabar NSW.
48․	On 2 May 2024, Detective Seargent Watson was asked by Detective Inspector Sprague
to assist in the investigation in this matter. Detective Seargeant Watson stated that at
about 4:48pm this same day, First Constable Seton signed him over four s 3E Crimes
Act 1914 search warrants inclusive of that for [redacted] Winchester Place, Karabar,
NSW.
49․	On 3 May 2024, Detective Seargeant Watson signed the search warrant for the Karabar
location over to First Constable Dodwell. He said that at 11:14am this same day he
attended the Karabar address in the company of other members of police. He said that
upon arrival, there was no one at the residence and therefore entry was affected via an
unlocked garage door and the premises was cleared, confirming no one was on the
premises. He said that First Constable Dodwell contacted the resident and made
arrangements for them to return to the property.
50․	He said that during the execution of this search warrant, he assumed the role of the
property officer. He stated that during the course of executing the warrant, five items
were seized and brought to him. The items were sealed and recorded on a property
seizure record, which has also been tendered in these proceedings. He said he left the
occupant of the premises with a copy of the property seizure record at the conclusion of
the search.
51․	He said that upon return to Tuggeranong police station the exhibits seized were lodged
in the secure property room.

Transcript of Record of Conversation of Joshua Stefanou

52․	Joshua Stefanou lived on George St in Oaks Estate at the time of the incident. Mr
Stefanou participated in a record of interview with police. The transcript of that record of
interview dated 1 May 2024 recorded that Mr Stefanou said he had heard what he
thought to be a firecracker at some point before 1 am. Having reflected further following
his conversations with police, Mr Stefanou estimated that he heard this bang between
12:33am and 12:55am as he was up stretching his shoulder.
53․	He also said he heard a car in the lead up to the bang and then looked outside the curtain
and noticed someone in a white or light-coloured shirt walking towards Brett Clarke’s
house. He said that it seemed like they were walking off after lighting a firecracker. He
also said he noticed a white dual-cab ute in the vicinity.

Transcript of Record of Conversation of Adam Steven-Slade

54․	Adam Steven-Slade provided the CCTV of the incident to Detective Senior Constable
Sean Cunningham and partook in a record of conversation with him on 1 May 2024.
55․	Mr Steven-Slade stated he heard a loud ‘bang’ around what he thought was half-twelve
which woke him and his wife up. He said they hear a lot of large bangs around there, so
he did not think it was anything to worry about.
56․	Mr Steven-Slade said he didn’t go back to sleep thereafter, but he did look out the front
and back windows about five to ten minutes later, however, did not see anything.
57․	In the morning, Mr Steven-Slade said he then became aware of police tape throughout
the street as his wife had mentioned it. He then spoke to the police and was given an
incident card, at which point he volunteered the CCTV from his residence.
58․	Mr Steven-Slade said he reviewed the CCTV footage recorded on the incident and
clarified that the CCTV display time is one hour later due to misconfiguration of the
daylight savings time features on the system.

Statement of Constable Jason Jun Pin Lung

59․	Jason Jun Pin Lung is a Constable with the AFP, who was attached to the Gungahlin
Police Station at the time of his statement. His supplementary statement dated 30
December 2024 was tendered.
60․	Constable Lung stated that on shift on 28 November 2024 at approximately 10am, he
and Senior Constable Beau Tennant attended an address in the ACT where he spoke to
a person known to him to be Ms Jasmine Peckham. He stated that on that same date at
about 11am, he and Senior Constable Beau Tennant attended an address in the ACT to
speak to Ms Leonie Woodland. He said he was present whilst Senior Constable Beau
Tennant conducted a record of conversation with Ms Woodland. He said that at about
12pm on that same date, he and Senior Constable Beau Tennant attended Queanbeyan
Police Station to obtain assistance in conducting location and person checks on their
police database.
61․	He stated that at around 12:20pm that same day, he and Senior Constable Beau Tennant
had a conversation with a neighbouring resident of [redacted] Boronia Crescent,
Karabar. Shortly thereafter, he said he entered the backyard of the resident he spoke
with and looked over the fence where he observed a hatchback vehicle parked against
the fence line. He described this vehicle as being black coloured on the top half, and
orange on the bottom half. He said he observed a white mattress sitting on the roof of
the vehicle of which he suspected to be an attempt to conceal the vehicle. He said he took four photographs of the vehicle and advised Senior Constable Beau Tennant of
what he had observed.
62․	Constable Lung stated that he and Senior Constable Beau Tennant remained stationary
at Banglay Street, Karabar NSW in their police vehicle and that at approximately 4:15pm,
he entered the residence of [redacted] Boronia Crescent, Karabar NSW under a s 3E
Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) search warrant, accompanied by Senior Constable Beau Tennant,
Detective Seargeant Mark Battye, Detective Senior Constable Shaun Cunningham, First
Constable Nate Holdsworth, Detective Senior Constable Keira Seton, AFP member
Chantelle Pellegrini and NSW police force members.
63․	Constable Lung stated that during the search warrant he was allocated the role of the
searcher. He commenced a search of the lounge room at approximately 4:30pm, which
concluded shortly thereafter, and he did not locate any items of interest.
64․	Constable Lung recorded that at around 5:10pm he located an axe on the ground in the
backyard of the residence which was seized before it was handed over to First Constable
Holsworth.
65․	He stated that a while later he observed an orange vehicle to be towed from the backyard
of the vehicle, which he observed to be severely damaged and not in a state to be driven.
He observed the orange vehicle to be loaded onto a tow truck, which he and Senior
Constable Beau Tennant followed to the AFP Exhibit Management centre where it was
securely lodged.

Statement of Constable Kurt Kleber

66․	Kurt Kleber is a Constable of the AFP attached to the Proactive Intervention and
Diversion team located at Belconnen Police Station. Constable Kleber was involved in
the execution of a search warrant at [redacted] Winchester Place Karabar, NSW on 3
May 2024.
67․	Constable Kleber was assigned to search this premises. He said he attended the
premises with a number of other officers and observed that Police had already gained
access.
68․	He said he conducted a video walkthrough of the premises, with the footage caught on
his AFP mobile telephone.
69․	At approximately 12:07pm he said he was requested by First Constable Oliver Bill to
search a bedroom at the rear, which was referred to as bedroom 2. He said that during
this search he located a black baseball cap, black Kathmandu brand jacket, wallet and
cards. At approximately, 1pm, he began a search of the garage of the residence where he located a black backpack which contained two black balaclavas under a temporary
shelving unit. He said he then bagged and sealed the backpack containing the
balaclavas and delivered it to Detective Sergeant Watson. He said he observed him
record the item on a property seizure record.
70․	Constable Kleber also attended an address at [redacted] Jarrah Street, Karabar, NSW
for the purposes of assisting in an ongoing s 3E Crimes Act 1914 search warrant where
he did not locate or seize any items.

Statement of First Constable Kirsty Jane Dodwell

71․	Kirsty Jane Dodwell is a First Constable of Police with the AFP, attached to the criminal
investigations, major crime squad at Tuggeranong police station.
72․	First Constable Dodwell met with Senior Constable Beau Tennant on 1 May 2024 in
relation to the incident, and was tasked with attending local shops in Oaks Estate to
make enquiries in relation to the availability of CCTV which may have captured the
vehicle which was used to get away from the scene. These attempts were unsuccessful.
73․	First Constable Dodwell also attended [redacted] Winchester Place Karabar NSW to
execute the aforementioned s 3E Crimes Act 1914 search warrant. Upon police gaining
access via an unlocked garage door, First Constable Dodwell called Mona Wighton who
advised she would be home shortly. Upon arrival, she said she commenced a record of
interview with Ms Wighton and Ms Kearni Cross and provided them with a copy of the
search warrant for the premise.
74․	Detective Seargeant Watson read the contents of the property seizure record to Ms
Wighton who she observed to agree was a true and accurate record of the items seized
from the premises.
75․	On 6 May 2024, First Constable Dodwell attended the Canberra Hospital and offered HN
another opportunity to provide evidence in chief interview in relation to the incident. HN
declined this offer. She said she observed HN sign a consent form to obtain patient
medical information from the Canberra Hospital and Queanbeyan Hospital of which she
was a witness to.

Summary of evidence

76․	On 3 May 2024, FT participated in evidence in chief interview with police. In that interview
she described being with HN walking along George Street in Oaks Estate sometime after
HN’s brother had been ‘raided’ by police. They were required to leave his home for six hours as a result. She said that she, HN and Jessica, HN’s sister, were at Brett’s house
after the raid when she and HN decided to go for a walk by themselves. She said she
had consumed two alcoholic drinks at Brett’s house before they went for a walk, but she
was not drunk. HN had not been drinking.
77․	She said at close to 1 o’clock in the morning an orange car drove past them when they
were stopped near a tree. The car drove down to the bottom of the street, performed a
u-turn and drive back up toward where they were standing. She noticed the vehicle did
not have any ‘plates’ and thought the vehicle was an orange Toyota Yaris because she
said she knows “cars pretty well”. She said she thought the car being there was “weird”
because they know every car that came in and out “most days”. She described the
vehicle as “scrappy looking” and she was pretty sure it only had two doors and that there
was no one else in the car.
78․	She said a person “being Bronson” got out of the car and had a gun in one hand. She
said he had a ‘hoodie’ on and a plain black face covering to his nose and he walked
toward them. She described the gun as being “brown, like wood, tan colour”.
79․	FT said the person walked over to them and said “is that you HN, do you want to get
fucken shot?”. And HN was “like, I don’t bro” and told Bronson that the police were in the
next street. She said the man started to freak out with that information and said “are you
fucken lying to me?” and became “like, hesitant to do it” because he stopped aiming the
gun and the exchange with HN went back and forth.
80․	FT said she was standing next to HN but also behind the tree to try and hide so she
would not get shot. She described HN as being closer to the road than she was. She
described hiding next to the tree but putting her head around so she could “see
everything”.
81․	FT said the shooter kept repeating “Do you wanna get shot?”. She said she was “freaking
out” and she did not say anything.
82․	HN was holding his hands up palm up in front of him imploring the man not to shoot and
repeating that “cops” were in the next street. The man she was “adamant” that he was
going to do it. She said HN was “pretty close” to Bronson. She said she saw HN “jolt
back” after one loud bang. She described the shooter as aiming the gun at HN’s chest
and head area.
83․	She said that within a minute “HN copped it” and the man shot the gun once. She said
she was facing HN when the gun went off. She said she did not think HN actually got
shot because he ran down the hill to their friend Brett Clark’s house.
84․	She said she saw everything except for the man getting back into the car and driving
away, and she was not sure if Bronson was going to reverse and do it again. She said
when HN ran, she ran and she fell over because she was looking back to see if Bronson
was coming again. She said she took long way. She said she got to Brett’s house and
HN said “I’ve been shot, I’ve been shot” and she saw that he was bleeding. She said HN
was panicking and said he was going to faint. She said HN said that it was “Bronson”
because he was carrying a grudge because of a dispute they had had some time ago.
85․	FT said “Brett’s Dad” who later in her evidence she named as Garry Clarke took them to
Queanbeyan hospital, they arrived there “closer to 2” and HN required surgery. FT
explained that she did “not know Bronson personally” but she had seen him in the weeks
prior “coming and looking for someone else a couple of weeks ago”.
86․	She described being at a friend’s residence “a month ago” when Bronson came to the
home looking for someone when she was in the shower. She said she knew Bronson
because she had seen him on occasion in the past when he was with her “ex” which was
“like, hi and bye” because she was dropping off some “smokes” to them. She said the
accused “added” her on Facebook “a couple of months ago” and his profile included a
picture of him.
87․	On the occasion a month prior at her friend’s house, she said she saw Bronson “face to
face” and looked into his eyes and described them as “black and, like brown eyes”. FT
said was in the shower at her friend’s house and she pulled the shower curtain back and
saw the accused in the bathroom with her and she told him to get out. FT said the
accused was looking for her friend who then ran from the house and the accused chased
him.
88․	FT said the accused was carrying “the gun” with him that he used to shoot HN and that
the interaction she had with him at her friend’s house lasted five minutes.She said
Bronson put the same face covering on as he walked out of her friend’s house as she
saw him using when he shot HN. FT said she was not drinking or using any illicit
substances when this interaction with the accused occurred at her friend’s house.
89․	FT said prior to the event where HN was shot she had met or spoken with the accused
“once or twice”. FT said she had spoken directly to the accused on one occasion being
“the last incident”. She also said she had in the past heard the accused’s voice when he
was in conversation with her “ex”.
90․	She said she “knew his voice because I just heard it over the past few weeks”. FT said
“It’s just I know him and, like – like, he’s just got a voice that I can tell that it’s him type
of” before described ‘Bronson’s’ voice as “dark and deep”. FT said there was one
streetlight in front of the tree she was standing behind and the headlights on the vehicle
were off.
91․	FT said she did not “really know” Bronson but gave the following description of the person
she said she knows to be Bronson:

(a) Black;

(b) “Sort of, probably” close to 6 feet tall;
(c) Not big but not small;
(d) “Staunch”;

(e) Carries himself like he is not scared.

92․	She said the man was wearing a cream-coloured hoodie and navy-blue chinos. She said
he did appear hesitant “of doing it”. FT said she recognised the man as Bronson when
he got out of the vehicle and she saw his “shape”, heard his voice and “it’s the same,
like, attitude and like, threats that was doing weeks ago when he’d done it to my mate in
the house”.
93․	She said HN did not say the accused’s name when they interacted before he was shot.

94․ FT thought the firearm was a “12-gauge shotgun or a double barrel shotty”. FT

demonstrated that the man was holding the firearm with two hands; one further along
the barrel of the firearm, one closer to the trigger.

95․	FT said since the incident she had spoken to HN about the “whole thing” and that HN
said the shooting was as a result of “beef” between him and the accused from when they
were younger.
96․	In response to questions from the prosecutor, FT confirmed that she first met the
accused with her ‘ex’ when they bumped into each other in August 2024 or maybe the
year before. She said they were at the shops, and the accused and her ‘ex’ used to go
to school together.
97․	She said she had been homeless for about 10 years and moved around and “been
everywhere and all over the shop”. At the time of the shooting of HN, she was couch
surfing at HN’s brother’s house. She said this was something she did at various times,
and she had also stayed at Brett’s house.
98․	She said she had “crossed paths” with the accused “probably once or – or more than
once, but at least three or more times, just when he pops in, in and out of people’s houses
around the area because they all know him”.
99․	She confirmed that the accused added her on Facebook around the time she met him
with the accused. She said she uses Facebook a “fair bit” and recalled the accused’s
profile having a photo which she recognised as him, but that she had not ever engaged
with him on Facebook. FT said on the occasion at her friend’s house she recognised the
accused. FT said the shower incident occurred two days prior to the shooting and the
occasion when she first met the accused with her ex was months prior to the shower
incident.
100․	She could not see who was driving when she first noticed the orange car because it was
“too dark”. She was able to recognise the accused because of the streetlight. She said
she recognised the accused when he asked HN “Is that you HN?” and she confirmed
that when questioned by police at the Queanbeyan Hospital who the shooter was when
she told them it was Bronson Cross.

101․ In cross examination FT said she was at HN’s brother’s house when it was raided but

she did not know whether the ‘raid’ had finished by the time of the shooting.

102․	FT said she and HN were walking up the hill to walk out of the street but stopped when
she noticed that the car did not have any plates on, and HN called her over to make it
look like she was giving him a cigarette.
103․	FT disagreed that when car first entered George Street, they were both standing still and
she said they were not waiting for anyone. FT agreed that HN told her it was Bronson
Cross who had shot him at the hospital. She said she did not tell HN it was Bronson
Cross, HN told her it was Bronson Cross.
104․	FT said she recognised the shooter as the accused when he first started speaking. She
said that with the light of the street lighting, she could see his face from his chin to his
forehead as he moved closer to them.
105․	He did not pull anything over his face at any time in the incident. The streetlight was to
the right side of the shooter as he was facing her right next to passenger side of the car.
All three of them were under the streetlight.

106․ FT said there was nothing distinctive about the shooter’s voice. FT said that she could

see that the car was a Toyota branded car on the back and recognised as a Yaris; an
older model incompatible with bluetooth function.

107․	She said the headlights on the vehicle were very weak and she could not be wrong about
that. FT said she had gotten her years mixed up when giving her evidence and the time
when she met the accused with her ex, Jonah was in 2023 at Queanbeyan shops. She
said the accused was there with his brother who she thought was the accused’s twin
named Jermaine. She thought Bronson had a moustache and his brother did not. She
said she thought his brother might be older than the accused. She said the accused
asked ‘them’ to come and have a “drink up” that night with him at his home. She said
Jonah and the accused went to primary school together. FT said she was not
“introduced” to the accused but after this meeting the accused “added” her on Facebook.
FT said the interaction on this day went for minutes. FT said later Jonah did go to meet
the accused and she dropped “smokes” off to them, but she did not see the accused.
She said it was when Jonah contacted her on her phone to ask her to bring him cigarettes
that she heard the accused’s voice in the background.

108․ It was suggested to FT that she did not meet the accused at the Queanbeyan shops

however she maintained that she did.

109․	FT confirmed that the shower incident occurred two days prior to the shooting. When she
was reminded that she told police it was a month prior, she said she was bad with time.
She said the shower incident occurred at “Sam’s house” who lived next door to Brett
Clarke. Sam was not the friend who the accused was looking for and was not home when
the “shower incident” occurred. The accused, she said, was looking for a man called
Justin Nano. She said the accused broke into Sam’s house using a speaker he sourced
from Brett Clarke’s house.
110․	FT said she was in the shower, she heard a smash and she pulled the curtain back and
Mr Nanno was in the bathroom, and she told him to get out and he did. The man who
she said was the accused then came into the bathroom. FT said she got out of the
shower and wrapped herself in a towel and went to the lounge room/kitchen area and
encourage Mr Nanno to come out and face the accused. He did come out from where
he was hiding but eventually “took off” whereupon the accused climbed out the window
after he threatened to shoot the dog and being unable to open the front door.
111․	FT agreed she told police that she had not seen the accused hanging around the Oaks
Estate area before the shooting. FT said she heard from HN that the accused had
previously tried to run him over.
112․	FT confirmed her belief that the accused was the person who shot HN and did not accept
that she could be wrong about that. In re-examination, FT confirmed that she could see
the Toyota brand logo on the back of the orange car. She said it was the silver Toyota
symbol and made a round shape with her hands and fingers.
113․	FT said she was “pretty sure” the accused’s brother was older than him and that could
tell “which one was which” if the accused and his brother were “standing in front” of her.
She said the accused had a moustache when she interacted with him at the Queanbeyan shops and that when she heard him in the background of the phone call with Jonah
encouraging her to come to the party. She said she “assumed” it was the accused. She
thought that Jonah may have used the accused’s phone to call her because Jonah did
not have a phone. She confirmed that she did not see anyone other than Jonah when
she dropped off smokes to him.

Garry Clarke

114․ On 1 May 2024, Garry Clarke took his son who lives at Oaks Estate on George St a meal. At the residence when he arrived was his son, HN, a girl named FT, and Jess who

was related to HN.

115․ He said close to midnight HN and FT left to go somewhere, and he was watching

television with his son. Mr Clarke said his son heard a bang and said to him that it
sounded like a gun. Mr Clarke said that replied to his son that it was a car back firing.
They didn’t make any inquiries about the bang. Mr Clarke said HN came back down and
yelled out “I’ve been shot”. Mr Clarke observed blood on HN, and he told HN that he
needed to go to hospital. Mr Clarke said HN “murmured” something about who shot him
“something Cross” and that is all he heard.

116․	FT arrived a minute after HN arrived at his son’s residence. She told Mr Clarke that she
was hiding and scared. Mr Clarke said FT told him it was Bronson Cross who had shot
at them. Mr Clarke described FT as “shaken up a bit”.
117․	Mr Clarke described putting HN in his car and driving to Queanbeyan Hospital. FT and
HN went into the hospital, and he went to park his car. Mr Clarke went into the hospital
and spoke to a nurse telling the nurse that HN had been shot. Queanbeyan police
attended the hospital, and he spoke to a Constable Emma whose last name he could
not recall. He said he told the Constable what had happened, and he was told that the
“Canberra police” would be involved.
118․	Mr Clarke said it was at the hospital that HN told him that Bronson Cross had shot him.

119․ Mr Clarke said at the hospital FT described what happened to him. She told him that

they were walking along when a small ‘Yaris’ car pulled up.

120․	Mr Clarke said he did not know Bronson Cross.

Kaine Downey

121․	Mr Downey is HN’s cousin. Mr Downey said he went to The Canberra Hospital to visit
HN at 8am or 9am in the morning of 1 May 2024. He said HN had numerous wounds
that he observed.
122․	Mr Downey identified text messages between himself, FT and Aaron. Aaron being HN’s
brother. Those messages informed him that HN had been shot.
123․	At the hospital HN told Mr Downey that he left Aaron’s house to leave Oaks Estate and
he was walking with FT. HN said that a little Toyota hatchback pulled up and a person
pulled out a shotgun. HN told him that he ran to a house, and he was taken to the
Queanbeyan hospital. Mr Downey described HN as not wanting to say who the shooter
was but that eventually disclosed to him that the ‘shooter’ was Bronson Cross. HN told
him that he and Bronson had ‘history’ over the years. Mr Downey said he thought HN
and the accused had known each other since school.

124․ Mr Downey said he spoke to FT through messages, and she did not give him much

detail, but she told him the same thing that HN told him.

125․ In cross-examination, Mr Downey agreed that HN told him that when the shooting

occurred, he was on his way from his brother Aaron’s house to someone else’s to try
and get a lift to go to his sister, Lisa’s house.

Bruce Whalen

126․	Mr Whalen gave evidence that he observed a gold or orange coloured Nissan Micra with
registration plates YQA 06U that randomly appeared at the complex he lived in at
Isabella Street, Queanbeyan from around September 2023. He described his property
as a complex with seven properties on the lower level and “two behind”. He said the
complex faces onto the river near the bridge in Queanbeyan.

127․ He observed the vehicle more than a dozen times since it first began frequenting the

property. Mr Whalen said that the last time he saw the vehicle at his residential complex
was 19 March 2024 at about 7:30am when the driver brought it through the driveway. He
stated he knew it was at around 7:30am because that was the time he was leaving for
work. Mr Whalen said that the person driving the car did look familiar, however it was
dark and that he could not describe the driver except to say that they were a man with
“darker skin”. He said he saw other people driving the vehicle however could not describe
them.

128․ Mr Whalen said he had not seen the vehicle without registration or different plates

however he was aware that the registration had expired. He said that he had checked
the registration through the ACT registration approximately when the vehicle first began
appearing regularly in around September 2023. He said he took photos of the vehicle as
there had been issues regarding ‘parking, people who should not be there, cars turning
up on all hours’ and therefore would take photos of any car he did not recognise. Mr
Whalan identified photos shown to him as the photos he took of the vehicle parked near
his complex.

129․	Mr Whalen said in cross examination that he saw the driver of the vehicle interact with a
female resident of the complex and that on 19 March 2024 that resident appeared to be
expecting the driver because she had run out to greet the driver of the vehicle on that
occasion.

Michael Huddleston

130․	Michael Huddleston is a resident at Winchester Place, Karabar.
131․	Mr Huddleston spoke with the police in August 2024 in relation to a car which was parked
outside his residence. He said police had asked him if he had seen the car, and he had
seen it. His evidence was that it was a mini ‘yellowy’ colour, had hail damage and sat
there for a week or so. He said the make of the car was some kind of ‘mini minor’. He
said it was parked near where you drive out from the residence where residents and
visitor’s park. His evidence was that he saw the vehicle when driving in and out of the
residence. He never saw anyone drive the vehicle and however agreed that police had
asked him about the vehicle in August 2024.
132․	Mr Huddleston was shown exhibit 4 and agreed that the vehicle in the images was the
car he was referring to. He said police went through CCTV footage that had been
captured from a motion operated CCTV camera that he operated out of his residence.
133․	He said the CCTV camera captures a field of vision across the road and the driveway of
the complex where his residence is. His residence is down the bottom of the driveway.
He was shown an image from the top of the driveway of Winchester Place and marked
residence [redacted].

134․ He said ‘Mona’ lived at [redacted] however he did not know her last name. He said he

thought her grandsons may have lived with her. He agreed that Ms Denise Chong lives
at [redacted].

Denise Chong

135․ Ms Chong lives at [redacted] Winchester Place, Karabar. She has lived there for a bit

over 4 years. She spoke to police in August 2024 in relation to a car which had been
parked out the front of her residence. Her evidence was that it was a gold-coloured car
which had been parked in the visitor’s area of the complex for about a week. She recalled
it might have been in May. Ms Chong was shown exhibit 4 and agreed that was the
colour of the car. She said the car did not have registration plates and it looked like it had
hail damage.

136․	Ms Chong said that residents do sometimes park in the visitor’s spot and that there are
two visitor’s car parks and they are out the front of her place. She said that there is only
1 vacant visitor’s spot. Ms Chong identified where the car was parked by refence to
exhibit 5.

137․ Ms Chong stated that Mr Huddleston lives at [redacted] and Mona Wighton lived at

[redacted]. Ms Chong was unsure whether anyone else lived at [redacted].

138․ In cross examination, she said that residents also have a space of their own directly

outside their own unit. She stated that she had never seen the gold-coloured car parked
outside [redacted].

Adam Devine

139․ Mr Devine said he “picked up” a vehicle with ACT registration YQA 08U, for free from

Facebook marketplace. He said he was driving it around for a while and it was registered
it his name.

140․	The vehicle was a gold Nissan Micra with stickers all over it and scratching damage to
the side and a window out. The last time he saw the vehicle was in 2021.
141․	Mr Devine said he initially lent the car to Mr Ben Towney who needed it to drive around
and then he gave it to him. Mr Devine said when he last saw the vehicle it had registration
plates attached to it YQA 08U.
142․	He described Ben Towney as having fair skin, 184 centimetres tall with dark hair and no
facial hair at the time.

143․ Mr Devine said on 30 April and 1 May 2024, he was in rehabilitation in Goulburn at

Mandala House. He said he was there over his fortieth birthday which was on 17 June,
and he went to Mandala House about a month before his birthday. He was there for 3
months and 5 days. He agreed he was admitted there on 3 April 2024 and prior to that
he was in the mental health ward for 10 days.

144․	He said he did not leave Mandala House in the early stages of his timethere for a month
and 10 days, when he was not permitted to leave the facility at all. After that time, he
only left the facility with chaperones. He said there is a roll call three or four times a day.

145․ He gave evidence that Ben Towney’s partner was Ebony Scott and that she lived near

the Queanbeyan River.

146․	HN agreed that he participated in an evidence in chief interview with police in June 2024
about an incident he was involved in on 1 May 2024.

147․ In the first interview conducted on 1 June 2024, HN said that he remembered he was

shot and that it happened when he was walking to go and check on his sister because
her house was “raided”. HN said he saw a “bright orange” or a “creamy” coloured car,
but that he was confident it was orange. He described the car as a “bubble-looking” car.
HN said it was “pretty dark”. HN said the incident happened at Oaks Estate. He said that
the car performed a u-turn and came past him and stopped. He said “they” jumped out
and asked if I was “HN” to which he replied “yes”. He said the “he” ran to the car, ran
back and pulled something out and started yelling. HN said he told ‘him” that the police
were in the next street, and he continued yelling and “then shot me”.

148․	HN said he panicked but that he could not remember much more than that.
149․	In the interview, HN said he could remember the day or the month the incident occurred.
HN said he was with “FT”. He did not recall her last name. He said she went to the
hospital with him, and he had not seen her since. HN said Bronson Cross shot him. He
said he knows Bronson Cross because he went to school with him for six years. He said
the accused was a tall, Aboriginal man. He said the accused was wearing dark clothes
and had something over his face.
150․	HN said he was shocked when he saw it was Bronson Cross because he would never
have thought that Bronson would shoot him. He described thinking “don’t run” and that
the accused hesitated to shoot him so he froze. He said he saw the shotgun “click back
and shoot him in the chest”. HN said he saw the shot and then five seconds later it hit
him.
151․	HN described the gun as “sort of dark. Like, really – like, a dark blue or something”. HN
said after he was shot, he noticed blood and he ran down the street to the first door he
saw open, and he went straight to the hospital. HN said he thought he was going to die
“100 per cent”.
152․	HN described an earlier altercation with the accused after the accused ran into a friend’s
house where he happened to be. He said the altercation included them hitting each other.
HN described himself as “coming out on top”. He said the altercation happened “last year
maybe”. He said after the altercation there was no issue because they shook hands “and
everything”.

153․ He next saw the accused “downtown” in Woolworths at Queanbeyan and described a

brief interaction with the accused where they said ‘hello’. The next occasion HN said he
saw the accused was when the accused shot him.

154․	In the next interview with police conducted on 28 June 2024, HN described an incident
involving the accused six or eight months prior to the shooting at his brother Aaron’s
house. HN said the accused was sitting in his brother’s lounge room. HN recalled asking
the accused if he had any problem with him and the accused said “no”. HN said he and
the accused shook hands.
155․	On this occasion, HN said the accused asked him where he was living, and he told him.
HN described the accused as tall, skinny, black hair, 20 years old “maybe a bit younger
and Koori”. HN said he went to Queanbeyan South and Queanbeyan High with the
accused, and he thought he was at least two years above the accused in school.

156․ HN said the accused was taller than him and he was six foot tall. He said he did not

socialise with the accused. HN described the accused and his family as Karabar “locals”.
The accused went to school with HN and “then moved away”. HN said the before seeing
the accused in the lounge room on his brother’s home there had been an interaction with
them where the accused “tried to attack me in my house”.

157․ HN said this altercation occurred over his then housemate. The accused and his

housemate “just had problems with each other”. At the time of the altercation HN said he
was home alone. HN said the accused during this altercation “just booted in my door and
started throwing hits at me and that”. HN said the accused grabbed a knife and he put
the accused “on the ground”. After this incident HN said the accused’s father, who he
knows to be Richard Cross, came to his house and tried to “fight” him.

158․	HN was asked about an incident where he was “driven at” walking home in Karabar. He
described being on the footpath at about 2am after seeing Bronson at his brother’s house
and said, “I went to cross the road and then I, like, heard something come – like, come
on the footpath next to me and I turned and then, yeah, it happened”. HN said when he
got hit by the car he passed out and he went straight to Woden in an ambulance.
159․	HN was played three clips of CCTV footage captured at the time of the incident from a
home in Oaks Estate.
160․	The first two clips were taken from a home where the vehicle came to stop. The assailant
and the vehicle can be observed. HN and FT cannot be observed.
161․	The third clip captured HN and FT to a limited extent.

162․ Some words can be heard on the footage. Some of those words were consistent with

words FT and HN recalled being said. HN said as soon as he heard the assailant’s voice,
he knew it was Bronson Cross. HN said that the accused asked if it was him and he
“rambled on about something” and the accused said that HN “was talking shit”. HN told
the accused he said that there were police in the next street.

163․	HN said he ran to Brett Clarke’s house and Mr Clarke’s father was there. HN said he told
FT to run, and she ended up going to Mr Clarke’s house. He said she arrived a matter of
minutes after him. HN said when he went through the front door he kept asking if he face
“was okay”. He said he did not say anything to the people in Mr Clarke’s house “at that
point”. HN said he did eventually say that it was “Bronson” who shot him.

164․ HN could “not particularly” remember anything that FT said to him when she arrived at

Mr Clarke’s house. HN said he was screaming because of the amount of blood and Brett
Clarke told his father, Garry to take him to the hospital. FT accompanied him to the
hospital.

165․	HN said he went to Queanbeyan South primary school with the accused perhaps around
2011. He said he would “not describe them as really good friends, just friends”. HN said
they would spend time with each other after school. He said he had not hung out with Mr
Cross over the last few years, but he had seen him “around town”.

166․ HN could not recall how long he spoke to the accused at Queanbeyan Woolworths.

When asked it is was polite or friendly HN said it was more like “hi and bye”. HN said the
altercation with the accused at his brother’s house went for five minutes.

167․	HN said he was shocked to see the accused at his brother’s house because he did not
think he would be there. HN said the accused just smiled at him and said nothing. HN
said he asked the accused if he had a problem with him and the accused replied “no”.
168․	HN said his brother kicked him out of the house straight after the conversation. HN said
his brother was aware of the altercation between them. HN said he did not “hang around”
any of the accused’s friends or associates.

169․ HN said he does not know the accused “well” but went to school with him. HN said he

was aware that the accused has a brother Jermaine and a “couple of sisters”. HN said
Jermaine is the same age as him and they were in the same year at school.

170․	HN said he had seen the accused’s brother Jermaine “once or twice” since school. HN
said he does not know what Jermaine looks like now and he was not good friends with
Jermaine. HN said he was better friends with Bronson. HN said he had not seen the
vehicle before the incident and had not seen it again after the incident.
171․	HN described that there are 84 pellets from the shot fired at him that remain in his body.
HN explained that he was recently remanded in custody in NSW, and he is currently on
parole. In cross-examination, HN was taken to his second evidence in chief interview
where he told police that he went to high school with the accused. He agreed he did not
go to high school with the accused and said he was “confused”.
172․	He agreed police attended after the altercation with Mr Cross at Mr Miller’s house. The
accused was not there when police arrived. HN said he did not tell police what happened
because they already knew. HN maintained that it was the accused who was involved in
the altercation with him at Mr Miller’s house and rejected the suggestion that he was
mistaken about that.

173․ HN said he did not tell police at The Canberra hospital that the incident at Mr Miller’s

house occurred five years before the shooting. He said he was “highly medicated” at the
hospital, and he could not recall what was said at the time.

174․	HN was shown footage taken at the Canberra Hospital where he was recorded as telling
police that there was only one reason why the accused “would do it” and went onto
described an incident with Mr Miller that happened four to five years ago. HN said he
had no recollection of that footage being recorded.
175․	He accepted the incident with Mr Miller happened “a fair while ago” and the worst of the
physical injury he suffered was a black eye. HN said he did not observe whether the
accused had any injury arising from that altercation.
176․	HN rejected that the meeting at Queanbeyan Woolworths did not occur. He rejected the
suggestion that he was mistaken about seeing the accused. HN recalled the period
between seeing the accused at his brother’s house and the shooting was “not even a
year”. HN said he shook the accused’s hand and told the accused his accurate address.
177․	HN rejected the suggestion that the meeting with the accused at his brother’s house did
not occur. HN disagreed that the last occasion he saw the accused was when the
accused was aged 11. HN said he had a “rough idea” that the accused had at some point
left Queanbeyan. HN said he was not aware of anyone else who wanted to hurt him at
the time the incident occurred.

178․ HN was played another portion of video of the interaction he had with police at The

Canberra Hospital where he was observed to be in a hospital bed, shirtless, and hooked
up to medical machinery with FT at his bedside. In this video, HN states in response to
being asked “Why does Bronson have beef with you?” that “if I gave two flying fucks
about what people thought about me, I’d be a fucking millionaire”.

179․	HN conceded that at the time of the shooting that there might be people in the community
who wanted to hurt him. HN also stated that at the time of the shooting “oh yeah it was
dark”. HN said immediately prior to the shooting he was at his brother’s house. HN said
the first time he went to Brett Clarke’s house ever was when he ran there after he was
shot at.

180․ HN said he was able to identify the shooter’s voice as the accused’s voice because it

was “the same”. He said initially he thought they were just going to “have a go” and it
was not until he saw that there was a gun that he realised there was a prospect he might
be shot. HN said he looked at the gun and at the shooter. He said he was “pretty scared”,
but he did not think that he was going to be shot.

181․	HN disagreed that he was distracted by the gun. He said after telling the shooter that the
police were in the next street, the accused yelled at him and HN said it was then that he
“froze”. HN said there was “no way in hell” he would accept that it was not Bronson Cross
who shot him.
182․	In re-examination, HN said he was not medicated until after the video footage which was
played to him in cross-examination. He described fainting at some point in emergency.
HN said when he said “have a go” he was referring to the prospect of a physical fight.
HN said he thought he was 19 or 20 when he saw the accused again after he returned
to live in Queanbeyan.
183․	HN conceded he did not actually know when the altercation with the accused at the Miller
home occurred. HN said his sister Jessica went right to the end of River St to their
mother’s ex-partner’s residence when their brother’s home was raided. HN said he
walked her there and that is where he had come from when the shooting occurred.
184․	HN said he and FT were together from the time of the raid until the shooting occurred.
HN said he went to Brett Clarke’s house because Brett “has a kid to my cousin” and it
was safe. HN said his sister was down the end of the street.

Constable Emma French

185․ Constable French is an NSW police officer. She attended Queanbeyan Emergency

Department and saw HN in a hospital bed with multiple wounds on his stomach. She
recorded a version of events given to her by HN on her body worn camera. The officer
also spoke to FT and Mr Garry Clarke.

186․	The body worn camera footage taken of HN and Mr Clark at the Queanbeyan Hospital
was played.

187․ The footage depicted:

(a) HN describing walking along and a person stopping a vehicle and getting out to
shoot him. He described the shooter as “being pretty fucken close” to him when
he was shot.

(b) HN said he went to school with Bronson and that the shooting was over
something that “happened a while ago”.

188․	Constable French said that she attended an earlier incident that happened “quite a few
years ago”. HN said to her that the vehicle driven by the accused at the time of the
shooting did not have any “plates” on it.
189․	Mr Clark was recorded telling the officer that he was at his son’s house with HN came to
the house and that he said, “he’d been shot”. HN said he had heard a bang and did not
think any of it. Mr Clark said that FT then arrived “thirty seconds behind” HN. Mr Clarke
said they could not “get much out” of HN but he did say that it was Bronson Cross who
shot him.

190․ Constable French said that after making those initial inquiries the investigation was

handed over to ACT policing. On the next day, she was on duty at the Queanbeyan
Police Station, and she was informed that Bronson Cross had attended to report on bail,
and he was arrested.

191․	Constable French said Bronson reported to her that he was not feeling well. As a result,
he was taken by ambulance to Queanbeyan hospital where he spent three hours before
being returned to the police station.
192․	The officer said at 9.53pm on 30 April 2024, she attended the Winchester St address to
do a bail compliance check, and no one answered the door when she knocked.

193․ In cross-examination, the officer identified a ‘fit for custody’ assessment that was

provided to her when Bronson Cross was released from the Queanbeyan hospital on 1
May 2024.

Constable Maddison Shoemark

194․	Constable Shoemark is an NSW police officer based at Queanbeyan police station. On
11 April 2024, she located a vehicle that had been identified as a vehicle to be kept a
look for.
195․	On 1 May 2024, Constable Shoemark was on duty from 6pm. She learned that Bronson
Cross was wanted by police in relation to a shooting. He attended Queanbeyan Police
station, and she arrested him.

196․ He was taken to Queanbeyan Hospital under guard, provided medical treatment and

released from hospital back into police custody.

197․	She described Bronson Cross pointing out to her some of his family members in a white
vehicle outside of the police station and a family member attending the police station
while Mr Cross was in custody to provide him with some cough lollies.

Senior Constable Charles Gannon

198․ Senior Constable Gannon is an NSW police officer stationed at Queanbeyan Police

Station.

199․	On 12 April 2024, Senior Constable Gannon said he was on patrol when he saw a gold
Nissan micra driving with no headlights on. He said he observed two people inside the
vehicle. As a result, he created a ‘keep a look out’ notification on police broadcasts
200․	He later found the vehicle. It was unlocked and he checked the registration of the vehicle
and discovered it had expired. He removed both the front and rear number plates of the
vehicle.
201․	Senior Constable Gannon said he located the vehicle on Jarrah St, Karabar, NSW.

Detective Acting Sergeant Keira Seton

202․	On 1 May 2024, Detective Acting Sergeant Keira Seton received a briefing regarding an
incident involving a shooting.
203․	Detective Acting Sergeant Seton together with Sergeant Mark Battye went to the location
and spoke to FT and Mr Brett Clarke.

204․ Detective Acting Sergeant Seton said she had been told that a person of interest had

been arrested.

205․ On 2 May 2024, she attended the ACT Magistrates Court to obtain a s 3E Crimes Act

1914 search warrant. Following this, she and Sergeant Battye attended Queanbeyan
Police Station to execute the warrants.

206․ A property seizure record detailed that a grey hooded jumper and a mobile telephone

were seized from the accused.

207․	On 28 November 2024, she was on shift when she was advised that a vehicle suspected
to be involved in the shooting of HN had been located at a residence in Queanbeyan.

208․ She then obtained a warrant which was executed at [redacted] Boronia Crescent in

Karrabar. There was nobody at the residence at this time and a vehicle was located. She
said it was it was a gold a gold Nissan Micra that had been painted black. She observed it to be extremely deteriorated with both the wheels and the interior of the vehicle having
been removed. It was subsequently towed from the residence.

Detective Senior Constable Sean Cunningham

209․ On 1 May 2024, Detective Senior Constable Sean Cunningham was attached to the

major crime squad at Gungahlin.

210․ On 1 May 2024, he commenced duties at Winchester Police Station at about 3:15am

and was in plain clothes however carrying his police accoutrements. He and Senior
Constable Beau Tennant were notified there had been a reported shooting at Oaks
Estate and were required to respond accordingly. A person of interest was named as
Bronson Cross.

211․ They attended River St at Oaks Estate. A line search was conducted with uniform

members to find any items of interest.

212․	A uniformed member located a firearm ammunition shell or casing outside of [redacted]
George Street during the line search.

213․ Detective Senior Constable Cunningham went to the Emergency Department at the

Canberra Hospital and spoke to HN and FT with Senior Constable Tennant. HN and FT
indicated to Senior Constable Tennant that they did not wish to make a statement. HN
did consent to some photographs being taken.

214․ Together with Senior Constable Tennant, he returned to Oaks Estate and conducted

further inquiries which yielded CCTV footage taken from [redacted] George St, Oaks
Estate. Detective Senior Constable Cunningham said after the accused was arrested,
he made further enquiries about whether there was any CCTV footage around the areas
where he understood the accused’s grandmother lived in Winchester Place and where
he understood the accused’s father lived which was Jarrah St in Queanbeyan. No CCTV
footage was identified. Detective Senior Constable Cunningham said that on 1 July 2024,
a warrant was executed at Winchester Place. Present at the residence were the
accused’s grandmother and his brother.

215․	On 28 November 2024, he participated in the execution of a search warrant at [redacted]
Boronia Crescent Karabar. A Nissan Micra was in the backyard covered by a tarpaulin
and a mattress. It appeared to him that the vehicle had been spray painted black.

216․ In cross-examination, Detective Senior Constable Cunningham agreed he collected

CCTV footage hard drive from [redacted] Winchester Place at Karabar. This was the
residence opposite the accused’s grandmother’s residence. Detective Senior Constable
Cunningham took the CCTV hard drive to AFP forensics for analysis.

217․ Detective Senior Constable Cunningham said he did not view the CCTV footage taken

from that residence. Detective Senior Constable Cunningham described there being
some difficulties accessing that CCTV footage which was why it needed to be analysed
by AFP forensics.

Brett Hackshaw

218․	Brett Hackshaw is a fingerprint examiner/expert with the AFP. Mr Hackshaw had worked
for the AFP for two years and commenced his fingerprint forensic career in 2002.

219․ Mr Hackshaw conducts fingerprint examinations, analysis, comparison, evaluation and

verification of fingerprints, as well as a range of duties around those tasks.

220․	Mr Hackshaw was tasked with the analysis of fingerprints lifted from a rear vision mirror
of a gold Nissan Micra and those fingerprints were insufficient for any comparison to be
made.

Senior Constable Beau Tennant

221․	Senior Constable Beau Tennant was the informant in this matter. He attended the scene
of the shooting on the morning of 1 May 2024. He participated in a line search where an
item in connection with firearm use was located. Senior Constable Tennant went to the
hospital and spoke to HN. HN told him he had been shot. HN said the person who shot
him was Bronson Cross. HN did not wish to make a statement. FT was also at the
hospital.

222․ Senior Constable Tennant took photographs of HN which he identified and were

tendered. Senior Constable Tennant returned to Oaks Estate and made further
investigations including requesting the attendance of forensic officers. Senior Constable
Tennant was made aware that CCTV had been located which captured the incident.

223․ Senior Constable Tennant made inquiries about vehicle registration YQA 06U and

discovered it was registered to Aaron Devine. Senior Constable Tennant successfully
applied to extradite the accused from NSW to the ACT.

224․	Senior Constable Tennant conducted checks in relation to the accused’s mobile phone
and received the call charge records, the register of firearms and the NSW Department
of Education with respect to the schooling records of the accused and HN.

225․ Senior Constable Tennant obtained warrant for [redacted] Winchester Place, Karabar.

The warrant was executed on 1 July 2024. Senior Constable Tennant executed the
warrant, and Mona Wighton answered the door. Her grandson Jermaine Cross was also
present. Senior Constable Tennant said Mr Cross “appeared to be Aboriginal” which he
clarified as meaning that he observed Mr Cross had dark skin.

226․	Ms Wighton and Jermaine Cross declined to participate in a conversation with police.
227․	Senior Constable Tennant obtained phone calls the accused participated in which were
recorded when he was an inmate at the Alexander Maconochie Centre. The calls were
played. The calls were recorded sometime between 2 May 2024 and 19 July 2024. On
11 March 2025, Senior Constable Tennant obtained a stored communications warrant in
relation to the accused.

228․ Senior Constable Tennant obtained a copy of the accused’s birth certificate which

recorded his birth date as 30 September 2003. Senior Constable Tennant agreed in
cross examination that he had made 4 statements in relation to the matter and agreed
that none of his statements included information about a search warrant executed at
[redacted] Jarrah Street, Karabar.

229․ Senior Constable Tennant agreed that he did not include information in any of his

statements regarding Detective Acting Sergeant Seton discovering that [redacted] Jarrah
St was not the address of the accused’s father at the time the Nissan Micra was sighted
on Jarrah St. Senior Constable Tennant agreed that one of the components of this case
was a link between the Nissan Micra and [redacted] Jarrah St. He said it was an oversight
that he had not included the information given to him by Detective Acting Seargent Seton
about [redacted] Jarrah St not being the residence of the accused’s father.

230․	Senior Constable Tennant confirmed that CCTV footage was obtained which was taken
from the residence at [redacted] Winchester Place. Senior Constable Tennant agreed
that footage captured from 29 April 2024 at 1am until 2 May 2025 at 11:44pm. Senior
Constable Tennant agreed that the CCTV footage from [redacted] Winchester Place was
the only footage which captured the one driveway in and out of Winchester Place.
231․	Senior Constable Tennant was played a portion of that CCTV footage taken on 29 April
2024 from 2:56:25am until 2:56:35am. He agreed that the time stamp on the CCTV
footage was 1 hour and 9 minutes behind ‘real time’.
232․	Senior Constable Tennant was shown clips from the footage taken on 29 April 2024 at
what would have been 6:40am and 8:16am and 2:30am on 30 April 2024. Senior
Constable Tennant agreed that the footage he was shown was the only footage
disclosed from that CCTV camera because it was the only footage he deemed relevant.
233․	Senior Constable Tennant George St is a dead-end street and agreed that the length of
the street was “give or take” 200 meters. Senior Constable Tennant agreed that the accused’s mobile number ends in the numbers [redacted]. A subscriber check for
number [redacted] revealed the number to for an account held in Alex Kinleyside’s name.
234․	Senior Constable Tennant agreed that there are two text messages sent to the accused
by Alex Kinleyside’s phone on 1 May 2024 at 1:55am and 6.35pm. Senior Constable
Tennant agreed that there was no response recorded to either message and no other
message from the accused making a request of Mr Kinleyside to spray paint a vehicle.

The evidence of Mr Gregory Palethorpe

235․ The evidence of Mr Gregory Palethorpe was adduced on a voir dire. The accused

objected to the admission of his evidence on the basis first, that it was not relevant and
secondly, and in the alternative, it should be excluded by application of s 137 of the
Evidence Act.

236․	Gregory Palethorpe gave evidence that he works in the geospatial section of the forensic
team within the AFP. He has been in this role for approximately 15 years. Mr Palethorpe
stated that his involvement in this matter was to input data from the call charge records
he was provided into a computer mapping program called ‘ArcGIS pro’. Mr Palethorpe
explained that it was his understanding that the program plotted longitude and latitude
on a map based on data from the call charge records.

237․ Mr Palethorpe explained that it was his understanding that a mobile phone will ‘ping’,

(connect with) a cell phone tower when it accesses the network, for example, when a
call is made or received or when data is used. Mr Palethorpe stated that he is not a
telecommunications expert though it was his understanding that a mobile phone ‘pinging’

333․ The effect of the prosecution evidence was the establishment of a link between the

accused and the gold-coloured Nissan. That link as I have already recorded does not
exclude the accused’s brother. There is no other physical piece of evidence which ties,
links or connects the accused to the shooting. This brings me to the admission.

334․	I am not satisfied that the ‘admission’ in the circumstances in which it was recorded, was
only capable of being viewed as acceptance by the accused that he was, in fact, the
gunman. It is equally and reasonably plausible in the context of the conversation, that
the accused was communicating to his mother that HN did not see his face because it
was not him or that the evidence as he had been led to understand by his lawyer, did not
reveal that HN saw his face. In circumstances where I am not satisfied that the
‘admission’ was only capable of being an acceptance by the accused of his identify as
the gunman, it is not a matter upon which I can rely to support the direct identification of
the accused by HN.

335․ After carefully considering the combined effect of the evidence, I am not satisfied that

the hypotheses consistent with the accused’s innocent have been excluded beyond
reasonable doubt.

336․	Whilst I consider it less likely that Mr Towney committed the offences, I am not persuaded
that it has been excluded beyond reasonable doubt as a reasonable hypothesis
consistent with innocence. Mr Devine gave Mr Towney the gold-coloured Nissan. Mr
Towney was in possession of the vehicle on 19 March 2024. Mr Towney did not report
the vehicle stolen to Mr Devine or to the police. There was no evidence about whether
Mr Towney and HN were known to each other. There was no evidence as to whether the accused and Mr Towney were known to each other. There was no evidence as to Mr
Towney’s whereabouts on 1 May 2024.
337․	Even if I am wrong about whether the evidence has excluded beyond reasonable doubt
Mr Towney as the gunman, the evidence does not exclude the accused’s brother as the
gunman beyond reasonable doubt.
338․	This view does not rest on the possibility that the accused and his brother are twins. That
possibility has been excluded beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence nonetheless
demonstrated physical similarity between the accused and his brother material to the
capacity for them to be distinguished from each other. This is consistent with FT’s
evidence that she thought them twins until she saw a post from the accused’s brother
wishing him happy birthday and the informant’s evidence where he identified two
physical features that distinguished them.
339․	HN, whilst definitive about the identity of the gunman, did not have any contemporaneous
experience of the accused’s brother which included his voice. I have kept in mind the
need for special care with respect to voice identification evidence. I have already noted
some of the features which attended to the opportunity for HN to identify the gunman as
the accused based only on hearing his voice. In the circumstances of this case I am not
satisfied that I can rely on HN’s identification of the accused as the gunman.

340․ The link to the gold-coloured Nissan applying equally to the accused and his brother,

requires substantial reliance on HN’s direct identification of the accused in order that it
be concluded that it was the accused who was the gunman. The nature of the interaction
does not rule out the accused’s brother as the gunman. Indeed, the gunman’s question
to HN “is that you HN?” is consistent with a person seeking to confirm his identity. On
HN’s version of his interactions with the accused their familiarity with each other limited
any need for the accused to confirm that it was him. A history or a “beef” between the
accused and HN, does not exclude the accused’s brother as the gunman.

341․	After carefully considering the combined effect of the evidence I am left with a doubt as
to the accused’s guilt. I am not satisfied that hypotheses consistent with the accused’s
innocence have been excluded beyond reasonable doubt.
342․	Accordingly, he is entitled to the benefit of the doubt I have and accordingly, verdicts of
not guilty should be entered.

Verdicts

343․	For those reasons, I return the following verdicts:

(1) The accused is not guilty of Count 1.
(2) The accused is not guilty of Count 2.
(3) The accused is not guilty of Count 3.
I certify that the preceding three hundred and fourty- three [343] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of her Honour Justice Taylor.
Associate: P Beohm
Date: 11 July 2025

ANNEXURE A – DIRECTIONS

Onus and standard of proof

344․ The prosecution bears the onus to prove the guilt of the accused. The accused is

presumed innocent unless and until the evidence which I accept satisfies me beyond
reasonable doubt of the accused’s guilt. If the evidence which I accept fails to satisfy
me beyond reasonable doubt of the accused’s guilt, then I must find him not guilty.

Fact finding and inferences

345․	The facts I find must be based on the evidence. I must bring an open and unbiased mind
to that evidence. I must view the evidence clinically and dispassionately and I must not
let emotion enter into the decision-making process. The prosecution and the accused
are entitled to my verdict free of partiality, prejudice, favour or ill will.
346․	I may draw inferences from the facts that I find have been established by the evidence.
I must examine any possible inference to ensure that it is a justifiable inference, and I
must not draw an inference from the direct evidence unless it is a rational inference in
the circumstances.

The accused did not give evidence

347․	The accused did not give evidence in the proceedings. There is no obligation on him to
give or call evidence in a criminal trial. I must draw no adverse inference from his decision
not to give evidence. The accused is entitled to say nothing and make the prosecution
prove his guilt according to the onus they bear, to the standard required. I cannot take
into account the accused’s decision not to give evidence in any way. I cannot use the
absence of any evidence from him to fill any gaps in the prosecution case nor can I use
it as strengthening the prosecution case. I must not speculate about what might have
been said in evidence if the accused had given evidence.

Circumstantial evidence

348․	The prosecution case against the accused is circumstantial. There is no direct evidence
of the accused committing either of the offences before the Court. Instead, the
prosecution asks me to draw the inference that the accused was the offender from all
the circumstances which have been proved.

349․ The prosecution will have failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt unless the

conclusion that the accused committed the offences is the only rational inference that
can be drawn from the whole of the circumstances established to my satisfaction by the
evidence I accept. Put another way, I cannot be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt on circumstantial evidence unless no other conclusion is reasonably compatible with the
circumstances established by the evidence.

350․ In a circumstantial case, all of the circumstances established by the evidence must be

considered and weighed together, not individually or in a piecemeal fashion. The
probative force of a body of evidence may be cumulative.

351․ As Baker J observed in Director of Public Prosecutions v Cristy Lee Holder [2022]

ACTSC 336; 103 MVR 30 at [65], for practical purposes a circumstantial case is
sometimes described as a "link in the chain" case or as a "strand in the cable" case.
\This case is properly characterised as a “strand in the cable” case, as it is only the
elements of the offence itself which need to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. This is
because of the capacity of a body of evidence to have a cumulative effect. It is not
necessary for the various factual "strands" to be proved beyond reasonable doubt before
they can contribute to the cumulative effect of a body of evidence. While each individual
strand may be of insufficient strength to support the weight of the prosecution case, when
bound together the whole may be of greater probative force than the sum of its parts.

352․	I remind myself that this case, reliant as it is upon indirect, circumstantial evidence, does
not result in a case weaker than one that relies upon direct evidence or eyewitness
accounts. The question remains in either case; has the prosecution proved its case
beyond reasonable doubt? Before I can determine that the prosecution has proved the
elements of the offence to the requisite standard, I must be satisfied that the inference
that the accused is the person who committed the offences has been proved beyond
reasonable doubt. If I am not satisfied of this inference beyond reasonable doubt, I must
acquit.

Expert Evidence

353․	The value of any expert opinion very much depends on the reliability and accuracy of the
material which the expert used to reach his or her opinion. It also depends on the degree
to which the expert analysed the material upon which the opinion was based, and the
skill and experience brought to bear in formulating the opinion given. Experts can differ
in the level and degree of their experience, training and study, yet each can still be an
expert qualified to give an opinion where that opinion is based on that witness’s
specialised knowledge.
354․	In the present case, expert evidence was admitted in the area of fingerprints and DNA.
This topic is within the witness’s expertise but is likely to be outside the experience and
knowledge of the average lay person.
355․	The expert evidence is before me as part of all the evidence to assist me in determining
whether the prosecution has proved the charges beyond reasonable doubt.
356․	I bear in mind that if, having given the matter careful consideration, I do not accept the
evidence of the expert, I do not have to act upon it. This will be particularly so if the facts
upon which the opinion is based do not accord with the facts as I find them to be. I am
also, to a degree, entitled to take into account my common sense and my own
experiences if they are relevant to the issue to which the expert evidence relates.

AVL Evidence

357․ The complainant and Mr Devine gave evidence from a location remote from the

courtroom connected to the proceedings by audio-visual link. This is usual practice. I
must not draw any inference adverse to the accused and I must not attach any greater
or lesser weight to their evidence because this practice was followed: s 68 of
the Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1991 (ACT).

Voice Identification Direction

358․	Voice identification evidence may be unreliable and has been shown to be so in the past.
359․	Evidence that the accused’s voice has been identified by a witness must be approached
with special caution before it can be accepted as reliable. These directions relate only to
the reliability of the identification evidence given, not to the honesty of the witnesses. A
witness may give evidence of identification honestly and sincerely believe that their
evidence is correct. The evidence can be quite impressive and even persuasive. Even if
I thought HN or FT was entirely honest in the evidence that they gave, I must still
approach the task of assessing the reliability of their evidence with special caution. The
identification of a voice is notoriously liable to be mistaken.

360․ Special caution is necessary before accepting voice identification evidence because of

the possibility that a witness may be mistaken in their identification of a person accused
of committing a crime. The experience of the criminal courts over the years, both in
Australia and overseas, has demonstrated that identification evidence, of whatever kind,
may turn out to be mistaken. There have been some notorious cases in which witnesses
have given evidence of identification which has later been demonstrated to be wrong
after innocent people have been convicted.

361․ I must carefully consider the circumstances in which HN and FT heard the voice of the

person the Crown alleges committed the crime and how they came to identify that voice
as the accused. The circumstances in which the witness heard the voice and identified
it can affect the reliability of that evidence.

362․	There are a number of matters that have been specifically raised in this case that require
my consideration in determining whether the evidence identifying the accused can be
safely acted upon:

(a) Was the person identified a stranger to HN and FT? It is obviously harder to
identify the voice of a stranger than it is to identify the voice of a person who is
well known to the listener. If the person was a stranger, how did they come to
be familiar with the voice identified? I warn myself that mistakes can easily be
made even in identifying the voice of a friend or member of the family. Identifying
the voice of a stranger is even more difficult.

(b) What opportunity did HN and FT have to hear the voice of the person?
(c) How attentive was the person in hearing the voice. Were HN and FT able to
give it full and undivided attention or were they distracted at the time?

(d) How clearly could the person hear the voice and how was the sound conveyed
to the witness. Was there any chance that the voice was distorted in some way?

(e) Was there anything about the voice which would have impressed itself upon the
witness? In other words, was there anything distinctive about the voice which
was similar or different to that of the accused? It may be difficult to describe a
voice unless it has some peculiar characteristic and without the witness being
able to provide some description, that makes my task of assessing the reliability
of the evidence more difficult.

(f) Was there any special reason for remembering the voice that was heard?
(g) Does HN or FT come from the same racial background as the person identified?
That is also something you can bear in mind. It may be more difficult for a
member of one race to identify the voice of an individual of another racial group.

(h) How long did the witness have to keep the characteristics of the voice in his/her
mind before identifying that voice as that of the accused?

363․ I am entitled to compare the voice of the accused as I have heard it, with the voice on

the recording in order to see whether that affects my assessment of the evidence of the
witness. But I bear in mind the difference that there may be between comparing a voice
heard in court with that recorded. I should consider the opportunity I have to compare
the two voices with that of the witness. I should take into account the clarity of the
recordings that I have heard and how the recording may affect the ability to compare the
voices.

364․ I must consider each of those matters. Any one of those circumstances may possibly

lead to error.

Visual Identification Evidence Direction

365․	There is an important direction concerning the evidence of FT in which she identified the
accused as the person who shot HN. identification evidence may be unreliable and there
are a variety of reasons why that is so.

Reasons for the need for caution generally

366․	Evidence that the accused has been identified by a witness must be approached by with
special caution before I accept it as reliable. These directions relate only to the reliability
of the identification evidence given, not to the honesty of the witness. A witness may be
honest but that does not necessarily mean that the witness will give reliable evidence.
Because the witness who gives evidence of identification honestly and sincerely believes
that their evidence is correct, that evidence will usually be quite impressive, even
persuasive. So here, even if I thought FT was entirely honest in the evidence that she
gave, I must still approach the task of assessing the reliability of her evidence with
special caution.

367․ Special caution is necessary before accepting identification evidence because of the

possibility that a witness may be mistaken in their identification of a person accused of a
crime. The experience of the criminal courts over the years, both here in Australia and
overseas, has demonstrated that identification evidence may turn out to be unreliable.
There have been some notorious cases over the years in which evidence of identification
has been demonstrated to be wrong after innocent people have been convicted.

368․ I must carefully consider the circumstances in which FT made her observation of the

shooter. The circumstances in which she made her observation of the person can affect
the reliability of the identification evidence.

369․	There are several matters that have been specifically raised in this case that require my
consideration:

(a) Was the person identified a stranger to FT? It is obviously harder to identify
strangers than it is to identify people who are well known to us.

(b) What opportunity did FT have to make their observation of the person?
(c) Did the witness focus their attention on the person or was it just a casual sighting
that did not have any significance for the witness at the time?

(d) In what light was it made?
(e) Was there anything about the person observed which would have impressed
itself upon the witness? In other words, was there anything distinctive about the
person?

(f) Was there any special reason for remembering the person observed? Was the
witness under any stress or pressure at the time? If FT was under any stress or
pressure at the time, how do I think that might have affected her ability to
accurately observe the person and store the image of the person’s appearance
in their memory?

(g) Does FT come from the same racial background as the person identified? That
is also something you can bear in mind. It may be more difficult for a member
of one race to identify an individual of another racial group.

(h) When was FT first asked for a description of the person and how fresh would
their memory have been at that time?
(i) How did the description given by FT compare with the appearance of
the accused?

(j) How long was it between the sighting of the person and the giving of the
description to the time that FT identified the accused?

370․ I must consider each of those matters. Any one of those circumstances may possibly

lead to error.

371․ In this case the evidence of FT is that she recognised someone that she knew. It is

perhaps easier to understand the possibility of error when the evidence is given by
someone who has not previously known the accused, but errors may also occur even
when the witness has previously known the accused. Mistakes have been known to be
made by friends and even by relatives of a person who thought that it was their friend or
relative whom they had seen. This is something I should bear in mind. Just because a
witness claims to have known the person, there remains a possibility of mistake.

372․	In this case more than one witness has identified the accused. This is a matter that I may
take into account in determining how strong the evidence is. However, this does not
mean that there is necessarily less chance that a mistake has been made. Two or more
honest witnesses can be just as mistaken as one.

ANNEXURE B – ELEMENTS OF EACH OFFENCE

Count 1 (CC2024/172): recklessly inflict grievous bodily harm contrary to s 20 of the

Crimes Act

373․	The elements of the offence of recklessly inflict grievous bodily harm are:

(a) The accused engaged in the conduct
(b) The accused intentionally engaged in the conduct
(c) The conduct resulted in grievous bodily harm being inflicted on another person
(d) The accused was reckless as to the infliction of grievous bodily harm

Count 2 (CC2024/5222): act endangering life contrary to s 27(3)(d) of the Crimes Act

374․ The elements of the offence of act endangering life, namely, discharging loaded arms

are:

(a) The accused discharged loaded arms
(b) The accused intended to discharge loaded arms
(c) The discharging of loaded arms was unlawful
(d) The accused’s conduct caused another person reasonable apprehension for his
or her safety

Count 3 (CC2024/4970): unauthorised use of firearm contrary to s 43(1)(a)(iii) of the

Firearms Act 1996 (ACT)

375․	The elements of the offence of unauthorised use of a firearm are:

(a) The accused uses something
(b) The accused intends to use something
(c) The thing used is a firearm
(d) The accused is reckless as to whether the thing used is a firearm
(e) The accused is not authorised by license, permit or otherwise under Firearms
Act 1996, to possess the firearm

(f) The accused is reckless as to whether s/he is not authorised by license, permit
or otherwise under Firearms Act 1996, to possess the firearm

(a)	Black paint on front bumper car;
(b)	Black paint on front driver’s side quarter panel;
(c)	Black paint on front driver’s side door;
(d)	Orange reference from front driver’s side door;
(e)	Black paint from rear driver’s side quarter panel;
(f)	Black paint from boot;
(g)	Black paint from rear passenger’s side door;
(h)	Black paint from front passenger’s quarter panel

(a)	The item not having had a firearm association;
(b)	No GSR being deposited during a firearm association;
(c)	GSR being deposited, but outside the areas of the item that were sampled;
(d)	GSR being deposited but subsequently being removed or redistributed prior to

(a)	HN reported being shot once with a shotgun on 1 May 2024
(b)	HN sustained injuries as a result of metallic pellets penetrating the following

3․	Adjacent to vascular structures including the superior vena cava, left internal
jugular vein, left external jugular vein, and branches of the right maxillary
artery and facial artery.
4․	The left carotid artery sheath.
5․	The right lung resulting in a hemopneumothorax and lung bruising. A chest
drain was inserted to treat this injury.
6․	The nasal septum.
7․	Both sides of his chest wall.
8․	Ride side of the abdomen.
9․	Right upper limb.

2․	Metallic pellets remain present adjacent to the superior vena cava (largest
vein in the body) and the additional critical blood vessels and nerves as the
risk of pellet removal outweighed the benefit of retrieval.
3․	HN has a residual metallic pellet located in the bone behind his right eye. A
finding of a “linear streak artefact” was reported through the right eye and
this was most likely caused by a metallic pellet travelling through the right
eye.
4․	HN has residual metallic pellets located in his face, chest wall, right lung,
abdomen and right upper limb.

2․	Comment regarding the potential for future eye and vision complications can
be sought from an ophthalmologist.
3․	Comment regarding the potential need for further facial surgery, long-term
facial deformity and possible fragment retrieval can be sought from an oral
and maxillofacial.

(b)	“Sort of, probably” close to 6 feet tall;
(c)	Not big but not small;

(1)	The accused is not guilty of Count 1.
(2)	The accused is not guilty of Count 2.
(3)	The accused is not guilty of Count 3.

(b)	What opportunity did HN and FT have to hear the voice of the person?
(c)	How attentive was the person in hearing the voice. Were HN and FT able to

(f)	Was there any special reason for remembering the voice that was heard?
(g)	Does HN or FT come from the same racial background as the person identified?

(b)	What opportunity did FT have to make their observation of the person?
(c)	Did the witness focus their attention on the person or was it just a casual sighting

(d)	In what light was it made?
(e)	Was there anything about the person observed which would have impressed

(a)	The accused engaged in the conduct
(b)	The accused intentionally engaged in the conduct
(c)	The conduct resulted in grievous bodily harm being inflicted on another person
(d)	The accused was reckless as to the infliction of grievous bodily harm

(a)	The accused discharged loaded arms
(b)	The accused intended to discharge loaded arms
(c)	The discharging of loaded arms was unlawful
(d)	The accused’s conduct caused another person reasonable apprehension for his

(a)	The accused uses something
(b)	The accused intends to use something
(c)	The thing used is a firearm
(d)	The accused is reckless as to whether the thing used is a firearm
(e)	The accused is not authorised by license, permit or otherwise under Firearms

[2025] ACTSC 291

23 October 2024