R v Adam Jon Britten - [2011] ACTSC 49

R v ADAM JON BRITTEN
[2011] ACTSC 49 (23 March 2011)

CRIMINAL LAW – jury trial – prasad direction – recklessly inflict grievous bodily harm – whether injury inflicted by accused – evidence of opportunity – no evidence of motive – reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused – verdict of not guilty entered.

Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT), s 68C
Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), s 20, s 23, s 25, s 49
Criminal Code1899 (Qld)
Criminal Code 2002 (Cth)

Brown v Blake [2000] WASCA 132 (11 May 2000)
R v Stuart [2005] QCA 138 (3 May 2005)
DPP v Walker [2011] ACTCA 1 (3 February 2011)
R v Crabbe (1985) 156 CLR 464
Sims v Drewson [2008] ACTSC 91 (25 September 2008)

No. SCC 22 of 2009

Judge: Higgins CJ
Supreme Court of the ACT

Date: 23 March 2011

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE     )
  )          No. SCC 22 of 2009
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY )

THE QUEEN

v

ADAM JON BRITTEN

ORDER

Judge:  Higgins CJ
Date:  23 March 2011
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

A verdict of not guilty be entered.

The accused, Adam Jon Britten, was charged on an indictment dated 12 July 2010.

It contained three counts but the Crown elected to proceed only on count 2, namely:

... THAT on the 2^nd day of March 2008 at Canberra ... [the accused] recklessly inflicted grievous bodily harm of Natalie Joan McClenahan.

On 16 February 2010 the accused elected for trial by judge alone.

The accused upon commencement of the hearing on 30 August 2010 confirmed a plea of not guilty.

The procedure for trial is governed by s 68C of the Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT):

(1)A judge who tries criminal proceedings without a jury may make any finding that could have been made by a jury as to the guilt of the accused person and any such finding has, for all purposes, the same effect as a verdict of a jury.
(2)The judgment in criminal proceedings tried by a judge alone shall include the principles of law applied by the judge and the findings of fact on which the judge relied.
(3)In criminal proceedings tried by a judge alone, if a Territory law would otherwise require a warning to be given to a jury in such proceedings, the judge shall take the warning into account in considering his or her verdict.

I must remind myself of the principles governing a criminal trial.

First, the Crown assumes the heavy burden of proving each element of the alleged offence to the criminal standard, that is, beyond reasonable doubt.

Second, the accused, whether he offers an answer to the accusation or not, bears no onus of proof, disproof or persuasion. That remains so throughout the trial.

Third, the accused is entitled to the presumption of innocence. That is not only a general entitlement but also applies to any invitation to draw an adverse inference from the evidence. An adverse inference is only permissible…

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 R v Adam Jon Britten

Details

AGLC: R v Adam Jon Britten [2011] ACTSC 49
Case: [2011] ACTSC 49
Decision Date: 23 March 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Adam Jon Britten came before the court, where the accused was charged with recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm. The dispute centred on whether the accused was the one who inflicted the injury in question. The court was required to consider whether there was sufficient evidence to establish the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The case proceeded to a jury trial, during which the jury was directed by the presiding judge to consider the possibility of the accused's innocence if there was any reasonable doubt.

The legal issues before the court involved the interpretation of the evidence presented and the application of the Prasad direction, which pertains to the circumstances under which a jury may consider acquitting a defendant due to reasonable doubt. The court had to evaluate the evidence of opportunity and the absence of any evidence of motive, alongside the principle that the prosecution bears the burden of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The court also had to examine whether the jury could have reasonably entertained doubt as to the accused's guilt based on the evidence provided.

The court found that while there was evidence of an opportunity for the accused to have inflicted the injury, there was no direct evidence linking the accused to the act, and no evidence of motive to suggest why the accused would have committed the crime. The absence of direct evidence and the lack of motive led the court to conclude that a reasonable doubt existed as to the accused's guilt. As a result, the court directed the jury to acquit the accused if they found any reasonable doubt regarding his involvement. The jury, following the court's direction, ultimately found the accused not guilty.

The court ordered that a verdict of not guilty be entered, reflecting the jury's conclusion that the prosecution had not established the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The judgment underscores the importance of the burden of proof and the requirement for the prosecution to provide compelling evidence to secure a conviction in criminal cases.

Orders

Orders of the court

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. A verdict of not guilty be entered.

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.