R v Booth (No 2) - [2021] ACTSC 255

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Booth (No 2)
Citation:	[2021] ACTSC 255
Hearing Date:	1 October 2021
DecisionDate:	1 October 2021
Before:	Mossop J
Decision:	See [27]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Where accused was acquitted of aggravated burglary at jury trial – transfer charge of damaging property – guilty on damaging property charge
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), s 116
Cases Cited:	R v Booth [2021] ACTSC 223 R v Booth [2021] ACTSC 226
Parties:	The Queen ( Crown) Richard Booth ( Accused)
Representation:	Counsel T Hickey ( Crown) J De Bruin ( Accused)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions ( Crown) Legal Aid ACT ( Accused)
File Number:	SCC 177 of 2019

MOSSOP J:

Introduction

These reasons relate to a transfer charge of damaging property pursuant to s 116 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT). Mr Booth was acquitted on a charge of aggravated burglary by a jury. He subsequently applied for a stay of the transfer charge of minor property damage. The application for a stay was dismissed: see R v Booth [2021] ACTSC 226.

The background facts are those that I found in sentencing Melanie Booth: see R v Booth [2021] ACTSC 223 at [7]-[17].

In these reasons I will refer to people by their first names. This is how they were referred to in the trial. I do not intend any disrespect to them by referring to them in this informal way.

The allegation of the Crown is that the accused damaged the front door of the house where Desi Connors and her family lived. There is no doubt that the door was damaged. Amongst other evidence was the evidence of Sergeant Lowrencev who said that the door had a hole in the centre of it and that it was unable to be secured. Evidence of the requirement to have the door replaced because it had a big hole in it was also tendered.

The evidence linking the accused to damage to the door was that of the occupants of the house. That evidence was inconsistent with the evidence given by Deanne Booth.

Evidence and assessment of witnesses

Desi Connors

Desi’s evidence was that there had been an altercation between Melanie Booth and MD at the front door. Desi arrived and attempted to shut the front door. People outside, who she identified as Deanne Booth, Richard Booth, Tiam Fisher (also known as Maloney), Sharneisha Booth and Bonnie Booth, were pushing against it. Tiam somehow got in the door before it was closed. Desi managed to lock the door. She saw Tiam going towards Michael Shannon and pushing him. She then said “At that time, I turned around, [ND] was standing behind - like, one of the door and then the next minute the door goes flying, swinging straight open. And then when I turned around and, like, seen that, that’s when I saw Richie standing at the door when the door swung…

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 Booth (No 2)

Details

AGLC: R v Booth (No 2) [2021] ACTSC 255
Case: [2021] ACTSC 255
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Booth (No 2) involved Richard Booth, who was charged with damaging property under section 116 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT). The incident in question occurred when Mr Booth was allegedly involved in an altercation with Desi Connors and her family, resulting in the front door of their house being damaged. Mr Booth was acquitted of a more serious charge of aggravated burglary by a jury. The court was required to determine whether Mr Booth was guilty of damaging the property, and if so, to what extent his involvement warranted criminal liability.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the prosecution had proven beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Booth damaged the property. The court had to assess the credibility and consistency of the witnesses' testimonies, particularly those of Desi Connors and her children, LD, MD, and ND. The court also had to consider the evidence provided by Deanne Booth, Mr Booth's sister, who claimed he was on the bus and did not participate in the incident. Additionally, the court needed to address the possibility that another unidentified person could have caused the damage to the door.

Justice Mossop concluded that the evidence, particularly Desi Connors' testimony, was reliable and corroborated by other witnesses, establishing that Mr Booth was present at the scene and involved in the damage to the door. The court found that the damage occurred after Tiam had entered the house and before the door swung open to reveal Mr Booth standing there. The inference that Mr Booth was responsible for damaging the door sufficiently to cause it to swing open was deemed reasonable based on the evidence presented. The court rejected the suggestion that Deanne Booth or any other identified person was responsible for the damage, and the possibility that an unidentified person caused the damage was excluded beyond reasonable doubt.

In light of these findings, the court found Mr Booth guilty of damaging property. The court determined that the damage did not exceed $5000 and that Mr Booth was reckless about destroying or damaging property. Consequently, Mr Booth was held accountable for his actions under the relevant section of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT).

Orders