McLean v Adamson

Case [2025] ACTSC 43

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

McLean v Adamson

Citation: 

[2025] ACTSC 43

Hearing Date: 

4 February 2025

Decision Date: 

19 February 2025

Before:

Taylor J

Decision: 

(1)   The appeal is dismissed.

(2)   The convictions for the charges of burglary (CAN2023/1060) and damage property (CAN2023/1414) are confirmed. 

Catchwords: 

APPEAL – Appeal from Magistrates Court – Appeal against conviction – whether the verdict was unsafe and unsatisfactory having regard to the evidence – whether Magistrate erred regarding identification evidence – adequacy of directions – burglary – damage property – error identified -  conviction confirmed – appeal dismissed

Legislation Cited: 

Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) ss 311, 321, 403(1)

Evidence Act 2011 (ACT) s 116

Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT) divs 3.10.1, 3.10.2

Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT) s 370

Cases Cited: 

Alexander v Bakes [2023] ACTCA 49; 21 ACTLR 27

Alfred (a pseudonym) v Eiffert [2023] ACTSC 403

Devenport v Garnon [2024] ACTSC 198

DPP v Campbell [2023] ACTSC 307

DPP v Holder [2022] ACTSC 336; 103 MVR 30

Festa v The Queen [2001] HCA 72; 208 CLR 593

Fleming v The Queen [1998] HCA 68; 197 CLR 250

Ji v Stone [2023] ACTSC 54

Johnson v Giumelli [2003] ACTSC 58; 175 FLR 467

Lee v Lee [2019] HCA 28; 266 CLR 129

M v The Queen [1994] HCA 63; 181 CLR 487

R v Kirby [2000] NSWCCA 330

R v Shevlin [2013] ACTSC 86

Robinson Helicopter Company Inc v McDermott [2016] HCA 22; 90 ALJR 679

The Queen v Gerard Robert Baden-Clay [2016] HCA 35; 258 CLR 208

Warren v Coombes [1979] HCA 9; (1979) 142 CLR 531

Wolter v Broomhall [2023] ACTSC 331

Parties: 

Andrew McLean ( Appellant)

James Christian Adamson ( Respondent)

Representation: 

Counsel

Self-represented ( Appellant)

S McLaughlin ( Respondent)

Solicitors

Self-represented ( Appellant)

ACT Director of Public Prosecutions

File Number:

SCA 30 of 2024

Decision Under Appeal: 

Court/Tribunal:          ACT Magistrates Court

Before:   Magistrate Cook

Date of Decision:       21 May 2024

Case Title:                 The Police v Andrew McLean

Court File Numbers:   CAN2023/1414

  CAN2023/1060   

TAYLOR J:

Introduction

1․The appellant, Andrew McLean, entered pleas of not guilty in the Magistrates Court in relation to each of the following charges:

Series 1: 15 November 2022

(a)CAN2023/1059: Burglary, contrary to s 311 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT).

(b)CAN2023/1412: Minor theft, contrary to s 321 of the Criminal Code. 

(c)CAN2024/1914: Damage property, contrary to s 403(1) of the Criminal Code.

Series 2: 6 December 2022

(a)CAN2023/1060: Burglary, contrary to s 311 of the Criminal Code.

(b)CAN2023/1414: Damage property, contrary to s 403(1) of the Criminal Code. 

2․The hearing in respect to both series commenced on 12 February 2024 and continued for two days in the Magistrates Court.  On 21 May 2024, the Magistrate handed down his decision.  The appellant was acquitted of the three charges from Series 1.  The Magistrate found the appellant guilty of the burglary and damage property offences in Series 2. 

3․A…

Continue reading McLean v Adamson

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
McLean v Adamson [2025] ACTSC 43
Case
[2025] ACTSC 43
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

McLean v Adamson involved an appeal by the defendant against his conviction in the Magistrates Court for the offences of burglary and damage to property. The defendant contested the verdict, arguing that it was unsafe and unsatisfactory in light of the evidence presented. The case also raised questions about the magistrate's handling of identification evidence and the adequacy of the directions given to the jury. The appeal sought to overturn the conviction, but the outcome hinged on the thorough examination of the evidence and the legal processes followed during the trial.

The court was required to decide whether the verdict was indeed unsafe and unsatisfactory and whether the magistrate had erred in their handling of identification evidence. Additionally, the court examined whether the directions given to the jury were adequate and whether these factors, if erroneous, warranted overturning the conviction. The appeal hinged on the interpretation of the evidence and the application of legal principles to the specific circumstances of the case.

In delivering the judgment, the court found that the verdict was safe and satisfactory, and there were no errors in the magistrate's handling of identification evidence. The court also concluded that the directions given to the jury were adequate. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the convictions for the charges of burglary and damage to property were confirmed. The court's decision was based on a detailed analysis of the evidence and the legal processes, leading to the upholding of the original verdict.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) The appeal is dismissed.

(2) The convictions for the charges of burglary (CAN2023/1060) and damage property (CAN2023/1414) are confirmed.

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.