R v Blake O'Brien - [2013] ACTSC 42

R v BLAKE O’BRIEN
[2013] ACTSC 42 (28 February 2013)

CRIMINAL LAW – a series of offences committed over a short period of time – a judge alone trial – whether the essential elements of each offence had been proved – whether the accused had been suffering from a a mental impairment at the time of committing the offences

Criminal Code 2002 (ACT)
Domestic Violence and Protection Orders Act 2008 (ACT)
Prohibited Weapons Act 1996 (ACT)
Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT)

R v Mulcahy [2010] ACTSC 98
R v Hill (2012) 266 FLR 1
R v Butler (2012) 266 FLR 168
R v Porter (1936) 55 CLR 182

No. SCC 10A of 2012
No. SCC 10B of 2012
No. SCC 10C of 2012
No. SCC 10D of 2012

Judge: Nield AJ
Supreme Court of the ACT

Date: 28 February 2013

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE        )         No. SCC 10A of 2012
  )         No. SCC 10B of 2012
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY   )         No. SCC 10C of 2012
         No. SCC 10D of 2012

R
v
BLAKE O’BRIEN

ORDER

Judge:  Nield AJ
Date:  28 February 2013
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

The accused is guilty of the nine charges.

As to the trial of Blake O'Brien:

The accused is Mr Blake O'Brien. He was born in September 1979. He allegedly committed nine offences between 18 May 2011 on 23 August 2011. He was then aged between 31 years and seven months and 31 years and 11 months. He is now aged 33 years five months.
The offences that the accused is alleged to have committed are these, listed in chronological order.
The offence allegedly committed on 18 May 2011 is that of intentionally or recklessly causing damage to electrical wiring in an electrical circuit box in the basement garage of Braddon Park Views at XX Wise Street, Braddon, owned by ACT Strata Management Services, contrary to section 403(1) of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT). This is the offence referred to in the indictment dated 28 March 2012 (SCC 10B/2012).
The offences allegedly committed between 25 June 2011 on 4 July 2011 are these:
1)entering or remaining in a building, namely the garage of XX Schonell Circuit, Oxley, as a trespasser intending to commit theft of property, contrary to section 311 of the Criminal Code2002; and
2)dishonestly appropriating property, namely a chainsaw and two plastic boxes containing camping equipment, owned by Mr John Dillon, contrary to section 308 (1) of the Criminal Code 2002.
These are the offences referred to in the first indictment dated 16 May 2012 (SCC 10A/2012).
The offences allegedly committed on 21 August 2011 are these.
1)possessing prohibited weapons, namely two throwing knives, when not authorised by permit or otherwise to do so, contrary to section 5(1) of the Prohibited Weapons Act 1996 (ACT);
2)dishonestly riding in a motor vehicle, namely Daewoo hatchback registered number New South Wales XXX-XX0, owned by Ms Lisa Kendrigan, taken by someone without the consent of Ms Kendrigan, contrary to…

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 Blake O'Brien

Details

AGLC: R v Blake O'Brien [2013] ACTSC 42
Case: [2013] ACTSC 42
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Blake O’Brien involved a series of offences committed by the accused, Blake O'Brien, over a short period. The Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory heard the case and had to decide whether O’Brien was suffering from a mental impairment at the time of committing the offences, which could affect his criminal responsibility. The court found that the essential elements of each offence had been proven beyond reasonable doubt. O'Brien was charged with damaging electrical wiring, trespassing with intent to commit theft, dishonestly appropriating property, possessing prohibited weapons, dishonestly riding in a stolen motor vehicle, causing damage to property, contravening a protection order, and causing damage to a letterbox. The court concluded that O'Brien's actions, though influenced by his mental health conditions and substance use, did not meet the criteria for a mental impairment that would exempt him from criminal responsibility. Therefore, he was found guilty of all charges. The court ordered that O'Brien is guilty of the nine charges.

Orders