Director of Public Prosecutions v Sullivan (No 2) - [2024] ACTSC 296

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	DPP v Sullivan (No 2)
Citation:	[2024] ACTSC 296
Hearing Date:	10 September 2024
Decision Date:	25 September 2024
Before:	Taylor J
Decision:	The verdicts are as follows: 1. Count 1: Aggravated robbery – guilty. 2. Count 2: Aggravated robbery – guilty.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Trial – trial by judge alone – verdict – aggravated robbery – extensive agreed facts – circumstantial case – coincidence evidence – identity of offender only issue for determination – CCTV footage
Legislation Cited:	Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) s 310(b) Criminal Procedure Act1986 (NSW) s 161A Evidence Act 2011 (ACT) s 191 Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT) s 68
Cases Cited:	Director of Public Prosecutions v Cristy Lee Holder [2022] ACTSC 336; 103 MVR 30 Festa v The Queen [2001] HCA 72; 208 CLR 593 R v Hillier [2007] HCA 13; 228 CLR 618 Selby v R [2017] NSWCCA 40
Texts Cited:	Judicial Commission of New South Wales, Criminal Trial Courts Bench Book (last updated Update 77, June 2024)
Parties:	Director of Public Prosecutions ( Crown) Joshua Sullivan ( Accused)
Representation:	Counsel C Muthurajah ( DPP) E Chen ( Accused)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions Legal Aid ACT ( Accused)
File Number:	SCC 126 of 2023

Taylor J:

Introduction

1․This is a trial by judge alone after the accused, Joshua Sullivan, signed an election on 15 February 2024 to be tried by judge alone pursuant to s 68B of the Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT) (the Supreme Court Act).
2․The accused was charged with the following offences on an indictment dated 23 June 2023:
(a)Count 1 (CC2022/11479): aggravated robbery contrary to s 310(b) of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) (the Criminal Code).
(b)Count 2 (CC2022/11463): aggravated robbery contrary to s 310(b) of the Criminal Code.

3․On 10 September 2024, the trial commenced before me after the accused was arraigned and entered pleas of not guilty to each charge. The matter proceeded by way of a “hand-up brief” and no witnesses were called to give oral evidence. On that day closing submissions were made and I reserved my decision.
4․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.
5․For the reasons that follow, the accused is guilty of each count on the indictment.

Prosecution case

6․In summary, the prosecution alleged that it was the accused who robbed the ‘IGA Drakeford’ on 13 November 2022 (“Robbery 1”) and the ‘Manuka Newsagency’ on 20 November 2022 (“Robbery 2”). Both offences were aggravated by the offender’s possession of an offensive weapon.
7․On 3 November 2023, Berman AJ ruled on a pre-trial application permitting the prosecution to adduce coincidence evidence. Accordingly, the prosecution relied on coincidence reasoning arising from a third aggravated robbery, committed at the ‘Friendly Grocer…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Director of Public Prosecutions v Sullivan (No 2)

Details

AGLC: Director of Public Prosecutions v Sullivan [2024] ACTSC 296
Case: [2024] ACTSC 296
Decision Date: 25 September 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Director of Public Prosecutions v Sullivan, the court was presented with an appeal against conviction for aggravated robbery. The case revolved around the interpretation of trial procedures and the admissibility of certain evidence in a trial by judge alone. The accused, Sullivan, was convicted of two counts of aggravated robbery and sought to appeal the verdicts on the grounds that the judge had erred in admitting and weighing the evidence.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the trial judge had correctly applied the principles governing the admissibility of circumstantial evidence and coincidence evidence in a trial by judge alone. Sullivan argued that the judge had given undue weight to the circumstantial evidence and coincidence evidence, particularly the CCTV footage, which was the only evidence of his identity as the offender. The court needed to determine if the trial judge's approach was correct and whether the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions.

The court found that the trial judge had correctly applied the principles of circumstantial evidence and coincidence evidence. The court held that the evidence, including the CCTV footage, was sufficient to establish Sullivan's identity as the offender beyond reasonable doubt. The court emphasised the importance of the totality of the evidence, including the coincidence evidence, in reaching a verdict. The court concluded that the trial judge had appropriately considered all the evidence and that the convictions were supported by the evidence. The appeal was dismissed, and the verdicts were upheld.

No further orders were made by the court beyond the confirmation of the verdicts.

Orders

Orders of the court

The verdicts are as follows:

1. Count 1: Aggravated robbery – guilty.

2. Count 2: Aggravated robbery – guilty.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.