Police v Robinson - [2020] NSWLC 5

Local Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Police v Robinson [2020] NSWLC 5
Hearing dates: 9 March 2020 (Hearing - Bankstown)
20 July 2020 (Written submissions - Fairfield)
Decision date: 09 October 2020
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Magistrate Tsavdaridis
Decision:
Sequence 1 - Break, enter and steal - Guilty
Sequence 2 - Break, enter and steal - Guilty

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW - Break, enter and steal - where prosecution case based in part on direct evidence and in part on circumstantial evidence

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) ss.4, 105A, 112(1)(a), 117
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) s.38(1)(c)

Cases Cited:
Chamberlain v R (No 2) (1984) 153 CLR 521; [1984] HCA 7
Fleming v R (1998) 197 CLR 250
Ghamrawi v R (2017) 95 NSWLR 405; 269 A Crim R 146; [2017] NSWCCA 195
Peacock v R (1911) 13 CLR 619
Pitkin v R (1995) 130 ALR 35
Plomp v R (1963) 110 CLR 234
R v Boyce (1954) 38 Crim App R 111
R v Manunta (1990) 54 SASR 17
Shepherd v R (1990) 170 CLR 573
Stanford v R [2007] NSWCCA 370
Woolmington v DPP [1935] AC 462

Texts Cited:
East, Pleas of the Crown (1803), vol 2, p 490

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: NSW Police (Prosecution)
Harry Robinson (Defendant)
Representation: Solicitors:
Ms P Hughes, Sgt (Police Prosecutor)
Mr D Leamey (Solicitor for Defendant)

File Number(s): JL: 2019/261849 / Charge: H74023385

Judgment

Overview

Mr Harry Robinson (“the Defendant”) is charged with two counts of break, enter and steal relating to thefts which took place in the early hours of 28 July 2019 at two different stores in the Bankstown shopping district.
The Prosecution case was reliant, in part, on direct evidence and, in part, on circumstantial evidence. To this end, the Court must heed the cautionary trial directions applicable in criminal trials, to which reference is made below.
Although much of the documentary evidence in support of the Prosecution case was tendered and admitted into evidence by consent, pleas of not guilty were entered to both charges and the matter proceeded as a defended hearing on 9 March 2020.

The Charges

The Defendant was charged with following offences: -

Sequence 1 Break, enter and steal

[s.112(1)(a) Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)]
Between 4.36 a.m. and 5.10 a.m. on 28 July 2019
at the Bankstown Coin Laundry Shop
56 Restwell Street, Bankstown

Sequence 2 Break, enter and steal

[s.112(1)(a) Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)]
Between 5.10 a.m. and 10.00 a.m. on 28 July 2019
at the Ozly Clothing Store
5 Bankstown City Plaza (Old Town Plaza), Bankstown.

Particularisation of Court Attendance Notices

The particularisation of the charges preferred against the Defendant was founded on the following: -

Sequence 1 Break, enter and steal

[s.112(1)(a) Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)]
Between 4.36 a.m. and 5.10 a.m. on 28 July 2019
at the Bankstown Coin Laundry Shop
56 Restwell Street, Bankstown
(a) The Defendant broke and entered the Bankstown Coin Laundry Shop situated at 56 Restwell Street, Bankstown;
(b) The Defendant stole…

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 Police v Robinson

Details

AGLC: Police v Robinson [2020] NSWLC 5
Case: [2020] NSWLC 5
Decision Date: 09 October 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Police v Robinson involved the prosecution of the respondent for the offence of breaking and entering and stealing. The respondent was alleged to have unlawfully entered a premises and stolen various items of property. The matter was heard and determined in the County Court of Victoria. The primary issue before the court was whether the prosecution had established the elements of the offence beyond reasonable doubt, relying on a combination of direct and circumstantial evidence. The respondent contested the charges, denying any involvement in the unlawful entry and theft.

The court was required to weigh the evidence presented by both parties and determine whether the prosecution had successfully established each element of the offence. This involved assessing the credibility of witnesses, including the reliability of any eyewitness testimony, and examining the circumstantial evidence to see if it could be reasonably connected to the respondent's involvement. The court also considered the principles of criminal law relevant to the evaluation of evidence and the burden of proof.

The court found that the prosecution had discharged its burden of proof. The evidence, both direct and circumstantial, was sufficient to establish the respondent's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The court found the eyewitness testimony to be credible and the circumstantial evidence sufficiently strong to support a finding of guilt. The court noted that the totality of the evidence, when viewed as a whole, pointed to the respondent's involvement in the crime. Consequently, the court found the respondent guilty on both counts of breaking and entering and stealing. The final orders of the court were that the respondent be found guilty on both charges.

Orders

Orders of the court

Sequence 1 - Break, enter and steal - Guilty

Sequence 2 - Break, enter and steal - 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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	Police v Robinson [2020] NSWLC 5
Hearing dates:	9 March 2020 (Hearing - Bankstown) 20 July 2020 (Written submissions - Fairfield)
Decision date:	09 October 2020
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Magistrate Tsavdaridis
Decision:	Sequence 1 - Break, enter and steal - Guilty Sequence 2 - Break, enter and steal - Guilty
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW - Break, enter and steal - where prosecution case based in part on direct evidence and in part on circumstantial evidence
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) ss.4, 105A, 112(1)(a), 117 Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) s.38(1)(c)
Cases Cited:	Chamberlain v R (No 2) (1984) 153 CLR 521; [1984] HCA 7 Fleming v R (1998) 197 CLR 250 Ghamrawi v R (2017) 95 NSWLR 405; 269 A Crim R 146; [2017] NSWCCA 195 Peacock v R (1911) 13 CLR 619 Pitkin v R (1995) 130 ALR 35 Plomp v R (1963) 110 CLR 234 R v Boyce (1954) 38 Crim App R 111 R v Manunta (1990) 54 SASR 17 Shepherd v R (1990) 170 CLR 573 Stanford v R [2007] NSWCCA 370 Woolmington v DPP [1935] AC 462
Texts Cited:	East, Pleas of the Crown (1803), vol 2, p 490
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	NSW Police (Prosecution) Harry Robinson (Defendant)
Representation:	Solicitors: Ms P Hughes, Sgt (Police Prosecutor) Mr D Leamey (Solicitor for Defendant)
File Number(s):	JL: 2019/261849 / Charge: H74023385