R v Bradley Grant Cooper

In the matter of R v Bradley Grant Cooper, the respondent was charged with assaulting Teresa Glennie on 13 March 2006 at Canberra. Cooper pleaded not guilty and elected to be tried by a judge alone. The Crown bore the onus of proving each element of the charge beyond reasonable doubt. The court considered evidence, including a transcript of a child's emergency 000 call as part of res gestae, and exercised its discretion to allow the prosecution to cross-examine an unfavourable witness. The court was required to decide whether the Crown had discharged its onus of proof.

The court considered the nature of a circumstantial case and the need to exclude any reasonable hypothesis consistent with the accused's innocence. It also addressed the admissibility of the transcript of the child's emergency 000 call and the appropriateness of allowing a child to give sworn or affirmed evidence. The court concluded that the Crown had discharged its onus of proof and found Cooper guilty of the assault charge. The court's decision was based on the principles of law applied and the findings of fact on which the judge relied.

Cooper was found guilty of assaulting Teresa Glennie on 13 March 2006 at Canberra. The court's judgment included the principles of law applied and the findings of fact on which the judge relied. The court took into account the warning that would otherwise be required in criminal proceedings tried by a jury. The court expressly excluded any prior knowledge of the accused's criminal record or previous assault on the complainant from consideration in this trial.

The final orders of the court were that Cooper was found guilty of the assault charge and that the provisions of s 68C of the Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT) applied to the trial. Cooper's guilty pleas to two counts of resisting police officers were not considered in the decision on the assault charge. The court's judgment included the principles of law applied and the findings of fact on which the judge relied, and it took into account the warning that would otherwise be required in criminal proceedings tried by a jury.