Pickett v Tasmania - [2022] TASCCA 12

[2022] TASCCA 12

COURT:	SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA (COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL)
CITATION:	Pickett v Tasmania [2022] TASCCA 12
PARTIES:	PICKETT, Adrian Alwyn
v
STATE OF TASMANIA
FILE NO:	CCA 1598/2022
DELIVERED ON:	20 September 2022
DELIVERED AT:	Hobart
HEARING DATE:	26 August 2022
JUDGMENT OF:	Pearce J, Brett J, Geason J
CATCHWORDS:

Criminal Law – Appeal and new trial – Verdict unreasonable or insupportable having regard to the evidence – Appeal allowed – Charges of aggravated burglary and aggravated assault based on contention that the appellant committed or aided and abetted the crimes – Wholly circumstantial case – Issues of post- offence conduct in assisting other perpetrators and flight – Not possible on the evidence to exclude reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence – Substitution of verdicts of guilty to being an accessory after the fact.

M v The Queen [1994] HCA 63, 181 CLR 487; Dansie v The Queen [2022] HCA 25, applied.
R v Hillier [2007] HCA 13, 228 CLR 618; R v Baden-Clay [2016] HCA 35, 258 CLR 308, applied.
R v Edwards [1993] HCA 63, 178 CLR 193, considered.
Weissensteiner v The Queen [1993] HCA 65, 178 CLR 217, considered.
Criminal Code Act 1924 (Tas) ss 402(1), 403(2).

Aust Dig Criminal Law [3475]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:

Appellant: F Cangelosi
Respondent: J Shapiro, L Ogden

Solicitors:

Appellant: The Cangelosi Firm
Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment Number:	[2022] TASCCA 12
Number of paragraphs:	69

Serial No 12/2022

File No CCA 1598/2022

ADRIAN ALWYN PICKETT v STATE OF TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

PEARCE J
BRETT J
GEASON J

20 September 2022

Orders of the Court:

1 Leave granted and appeal allowed.
2 Verdicts of guilty of aggravated burglary and aggravated assault set aside and verdicts of guilty of being an accessory after the fact to aggravated burglary and being an accessory after the fact to aggravated assault substituted.

Serial No 12/2022

File No CCA 1598/2022

ADRIAN ALWYN PICKETT V STATE OF TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
PEARCE J
20 September 2022

1 The appellant was found guilty by a jury of aggravated burglary and aggravated assault. The crimes were alleged to have been committed on 17 February 2019. The sole ground of appeal is that the verdicts of guilt are unreasonable and cannot be supported having regard to the evidence.
2 Because the appellant's ground of appeal does not only involve a question of law, by virtue of s 401(1)(b) of the Criminal Code he needs leave to appeal. That application was not made in the notice of appeal. The respondent did not raise the point. The appeal should be treated as including an application for leave to appeal. I agree with Brett J that, for the reasons his Honour gives, leave should be granted and the appeal allowed. The verdicts of guilt should be set aside and substituted by verdicts that the…

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 Pickett v Tasmania

Details

AGLC: Pickett v Tasmania [2022] TASCCA 12
Case: [2022] TASCCA 12
Decision Date: 20 September 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Pickett, appealed to the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Tasmania against convictions for aggravated burglary and aggravated assault. The prosecution's case was entirely circumstantial, alleging that Pickett either committed these offences or aided and abetted their commission.

The central legal issue before the Full Court was whether the verdicts of guilty were unreasonable or insupportable having regard to the evidence presented at trial. This required the Court to consider whether the circumstantial evidence, including Pickett's conduct after the alleged offences, such as assisting other perpetrators and fleeing, was sufficient to exclude any reasonable hypothesis consistent with his innocence.

The Full Court found that while the evidence might have suggested Pickett's involvement in some capacity, it did not exclude a reasonable hypothesis that he was merely an accessory after the fact, rather than a principal offender or abettor. The Court reasoned that the circumstantial evidence, particularly concerning his post-offence conduct, did not unequivocally point to guilt of the primary offences. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, quashed the convictions for aggravated burglary and aggravated assault, and substituted verdicts of guilty for the lesser offence of being an accessory after the fact.

Orders