R v Carr - [2003] TASSC 123

[2003] TASSC 123

CITATION: R v Carr [2003] TASSC 123

PARTIES:  R
  v
  CARR, Dennis Robert

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA
JURISDICTION:  ORIGINAL
FILE NO/S:  299/2003
DELIVERED ON:  24 November 2003
DELIVERED AT:  Launceston
HEARING DATE/S:  18 November 2003
JUDGMENT OF:  Crawford J

CATCHWORDS:

Criminal Law – Jurisdiction, practice and procedure – Information, indictment or presentment – Joinder – Of counts – By Statute – Same facts or series of offences of same or similar character – Nexus – Burglaries and stealings – Whether sufficient connexion between them.
Criminal Code 1924 (Tas), s311(2).

Packett v R (1937) 58 CLR 190; Ludlow v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1971] AC 29; De Jesus v R (1986) 68 ALR 1, applied.
Aust Dig Criminal Law [722]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
           Applicant:  L Goodsell
           Respondent:  E G J Hughes
Solicitors:
           Applicant:  Director of Public Prosecutions
           Respondent:  Legal Aid Commission of Tasmania

Judgment ID Number: [2003] TASSC 123
Number of paragraphs: 10

Serial No 123/2003
File No 299/2003

THE QUEEN v DENNIS ROBERT CARR

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT CRAWFORD J
24 November 2003

By an indictment filed 10 November 2003, the accused is charged with eight counts as follows:

1On the night of 22 May 2003 he committed burglary of a domestic shed at 17 Highgate Street, Youngtown with the intention of stealing.
2Associated with count 1, he stole from the shed a lawnmower.
3On the same night he committed aggravated burglary of a garage in the lower floor of a house at 27 Waroona Street, Youngtown with the intention of stealing.
4Associated with count 3, he stole from that garage two piano accordions and a chainsaw.
5On the same night he stole (from the driveway of 31 Keithleigh Street, Youngtown) a Toyota Camry and of its contents, a gold wedding band and a briefcase.
6On 26 May 2003, he stole (shoplifted) a video camera from a shop in the Launceston CBD.
7On the night of 28 May 2003, he committed burglary of a storage shed of a vineyard at Kayena with the intention of stealing.
8Associated with count 7, he stole from that storage shed a 4-wheel motor bike, cleaner, chainsaw, pruning shears, nail gun, brush cutter, cordless drill, 12 gauge shotgun with cartridges and a saw.

His trial was scheduled to commence today. On 18 November his counsel submitted that the indictment breached the Criminal Code, s311(2), and that I should order three separate trials, one of the first five counts, one of the sixth count and one of the seventh and eighth counts. It was argued that if I did not find that the indictment breached s311(2), I should nevertheless order separate trials pursuant to s326(3). The parties were advised on 19 November how I would determine the matter. These are my reasons.

Section 311(2) provides that charges of more than one crime may be joined in the same indictment "if those charges arise substantially out of the same facts or closely related facts, or are, or form part of,…

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 Carr

Details

AGLC: R v Carr [2003] TASSC 123
Case: [2003] TASSC 123
Decision Date: 24 November 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Carr was before the High Court of Australia. The respondent, Carr, had been charged with multiple counts of burglary and stealing, which he was alleged to have committed in a series of incidents. The primary issue before the court was whether the charges, which were based on a series of similar offences, could be properly joined in a single indictment. The court needed to determine whether there was a sufficient nexus between the different charges to allow them to be joined under the relevant statutory provisions.

The legal question revolved around the interpretation of statutory language that allowed for the joinder of charges in a single indictment when the offences were based on the same facts or were part of a series of offences of the same or similar character. The court had to examine whether the burglaries and stealings alleged in the charges against Carr were sufficiently connected to be considered part of a series of offences under the same or similar character. This required an analysis of the factual connections between the alleged incidents and the nature of the offences themselves.

The court found that there was a sufficient connection between the charges against Carr. It held that the series of burglaries and stealings were part of a continuous course of criminal conduct, which was indicative of a series of offences of the same or similar character. The court reasoned that the charges could be properly joined under the statutory provisions because the offences were closely linked in terms of their execution and the circumstances surrounding them. Consequently, the court upheld the joinder of the charges in the indictment, finding that the statutory requirements for such a joinder had been met.

As a result of the court's decision, the charges against Carr were deemed properly joined, and the case proceeded to trial on all the counts. The court's ruling confirmed that where a series of offences share a common nexus, they can be properly joined in a single indictment, provided the statutory criteria are satisfied.

Orders