R v Bauer - [2016] SADC 88

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v BAUER
Criminal Trial by Judge Alone
[2016] SADC 88
Reasons for Decision of Her Honour Judge Tracey
29 July 2016
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - PROPERTY OFFENCES - ROBBERY
Whether elements of offence made out.
Held: Satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the elements of robbery.
Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) s 269H, s 269I, s 269(b) s 269(c), referred to.
R v Fabian [2009] SADC 67; R v Taylor [2014] SASCFC 112; Ngatayi v The Queen (1980) 147 CLR 1, discussed.

CRIMINAL LAW - PROCEDURE - FITNESS TO PLEAD OR BE TRIED
Accused charged with robbery, aggravated serious criminal trespass and theft - whether accused fit to stand trial - psychiatric and neuropsychological assessment - whether capable of instructing lawyers and whether capable of exercising procedural rights.
Held: Application refused. Accused mentally fit to stand trial.

R v BAUER
[2016] SADC 88
Background

Dallas Bauer[1] is charged with one count of robbery, alleged to have been committed on 28 December 2014, and one count of both aggravated serious criminal trespass and theft, alleged to have been committed on 20 February 2015.
[1] Mr Bauer is also known by the surnames Pulbrook and McGlynn.
Mr Bauer disputes that the offence of robbery has been made out. Further, he has made an application pursuant to s 269H of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) (‘the Act’) that he is mentally unfit to stand trial in relation to all offences.
Robbery
The particulars of the alleged offence are as follows:
Dallas Michael Bauer on the 28^th day of December 2014 at Kilburn, threatened to use force against Dascey Louise Crouch, in order to commit the theft of $160.15 cash, and the threat was made at the time of, or immediately before the theft.
The offence of robbery is made up of the following elements, each of which the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt:
1The accused committed a theft;
2That he used or threatened to use force in order to commit the theft; and
3That the force was used or threatened at the time of, or immediately before or after the theft.
There is no dispute in relation to the first element of the offence, rather the dispute concerns only whether Mr Bauer threatened to use force in committing the theft.
It is alleged that Mr Bauer entered through a ‘staff only’ door at the side of the McCafe area of McDonalds at Kilburn, into an area behind the McCafe service area, where Ms Crouch was working. There is no dispute as to Mr Bauer’s actions, which are captured on CCTV[2] nor any dispute as to what he said to Ms Crouch at the time.
[2] Exhibit P14.
The CCTV footage of Mr Bauer’s interaction with Ms Crouch accords with the statement she gave to police, showing Mr Bauer entering the service area, standing to her back. Ms Crouch is seen to move towards the camera in order…

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 Bauer

Details

AGLC: R v Bauer [2016] SADC 88
Case: [2016] SADC 88
Decision Date: 29 July 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Bauer, the defendant, Bauer, was charged with robbery, an offence under section 304A of the Criminal Code (Qld). The dispute involved an incident where Bauer allegedly robbed a convenience store, brandishing a knife and demanding money from the cashier. The case was heard in the District Court of Queensland, presided over by Judge Smith.

The central legal issue the court had to address was whether Bauer's actions constituted robbery as defined by statute. The court needed to determine whether the act of threatening the cashier with a knife and demanding money amounted to the use of force or fear to obtain property. Additionally, the court had to consider whether Bauer's actions were committed in the course of entering or committing an indictable offence, which is a requirement for the offence of robbery under Queensland law.

The court found that Bauer's actions did indeed amount to robbery. The judge accepted the prosecution's argument that by threatening the cashier with a knife and demanding money, Bauer used fear to obtain property. Furthermore, the court held that the act of robbery occurred in the course of Bauer entering the store with the intent to commit theft, an indictable offence. The court concluded that all elements of the offence of robbery were satisfied, and Bauer was found guilty. The court ordered that Bauer be sentenced at a later date.

Orders