R v Briggs

[2025] NSWDC 378

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

R v Briggs [2025] NSWDC 378

Hearing dates:

15 September 2025, 16 September 2025, 17 September 2025, 18 September 2025

Decision date:

18 September 2025

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Before:

Priestley SC DCJ

Decision:

(1)   On the one count on the indictment that the accused on or about 2 October 2022 at Merewether in the State of New South Wales did break and enter the dwelling house at 1/10 Ranclaud St Merewether and therein commit a serious indictable offence, namely, larceny, in circumstances of aggravation, namely he knew there were persons inside the dwelling house of the accused is not guilty.

Catchwords:

CRIME — Aggravated robbery —Circumstantial case — DNA

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act 1900 (NSW).

Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW)

Cases Cited:

Fitzgerald [2014] HCA 28

Fleming-v-R (1998) 197 CLR 250

Ignatov [2018] NSWCCA 217

Singh v R [2025] NSWCCA 34

The Queen v Baden-Clay [2016] HCA 35

Category:

Principal judgment

Parties:

Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Peter Edward Briggs (Accused)

Representation:

Counsel:
Mr D. Quinn for the Accused
Solicitors:
Director of Public Prosecutions for the Crown
Buchanan Legal Solicitors for the Accused

File Number(s):

2023/00279477

JUDGMENT

Introduction

1. The accused, Peter Edward Briggs, stands trial on an indictment containing one count, namely that on or about 2 October 2022 he did break and enter a dwelling house at 1/10 Ranclaud Street Merewether, (“the premises”) and therein did commit larceny in circumstances of aggravation namely that he knew persons were inside the premises.

2. The accused applied for the matter to proceed as a judge alone trial, an application to which the Crown consented, so that a judge alone trial order was made on 16 September 2025.

3. I note s133 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) which requires that this judgment must include the principles of law applied by me and the findings of fact on which I rely, and also that I take into account any warning required by any Act or law to be given to a jury.

4. It is necessary to set out various directions below of which I remind myself. Before doing so, by way of introduction I note the trial was short. Arguments concerning tendency evidence and DNA evidence were dealt with and the evidence in the trial began on 17 September, and closing addresses concluded that same day. The evidence is largely agreed and there is a statement of agreed facts for a fair part of the evidence. The case turns on the DNA evidence; even then, there is little if any dispute as to what that evidence is, with the dispute in the case being whether the DNA evidence together with all the other evidence in the case is sufficient for the Crown to satisfy the high onus it bears of establishing the elements of the alleged offence beyond reasonable doubt. The case is a circumstantial one, and it is necessary for the Crown to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the evidence does not allow for any…