R v Christopher Darryl Mann - [2009] ACTSC 5

R v CHRISTOPHER DARRYL MANN [2009] ACTSC 5 (9 FEBRUARY 2009)

CRIMINAL LAW – trial by Judge alone – aggravated robbery – accessory after the fact – act of assistance – fault elements of knowledge and intent– Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), s 717.

Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), s 13, s 16, s 18, s 19, s 717

Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), s 91

Sykes v Director of Public Prosecutions [1962] AC 528
Petty v The Queen (1991) 173 CLR 95
R v Holly [1963] 1 WLR 199
R v Hurley and Murray [1967] VR 526

The Macquarie Dictionary, (3^rd ed, 1998)
Commonwealth Criminal Code: A Guide for Practitioners, 2002, Australian Institute of Judicial Administration

No. SCC 80 of 2007

Judge: Gray J
Supreme Court of the ACT

Date: 9 February 2009

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE       )
  )          No. SCC 80 of 2007
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY    )

THE QUEEN
v
CHRISTOPHER DARRYL MANN

ORDER

Judge:  Gray J
Date:  9 February 2009
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

The accused be acquitted.

Christopher Darryl Mann (the accused) is charged on indictment that:

… on the 11^th day of December 2006 at Canberra in the Australian Capital Territory [he] assisted David Larkin knowing the said David Larkin had committed an offence, namely aggravated robbery, and did so with the intention of allowing the said David Larkin to escape apprehension or prosecution.

On 14 August 2007, the accused elected to be tried by judge alone.

On 8 November 2007, he was arraigned and pleaded not guilty to the count on the indictment.

The facts

On 11 December 2006, at about 10:00 pm, the accused was driving his vehicle along Northbourne Avenue. He had a passenger in the car, David Larkin, whom he was intending to drive home. Mr Larkin asked the accused to pull over as he wanted to go to the toilet. The accused drove his car into a car park and stopped his vehicle. Mr Larkin got out of the vehicle and the accused waited for him. Mr Larkin went out of his sight.

At about that time, William Wilson was walking along a footpath on Northbourne Avenue towards the hotel where he was staying. He was approached by Mr Larkin who produced a Leatherman pocket knife which had a 7 cm blade. The knife was held to the right side of Mr Wilson’s throat and he was robbed of an iPod.

Mr Larkin returned to the accused’s vehicle and put the Leatherman into the centre console of the car. The accused drove away and as he did so, noticed a male on the side of the road holding his phone in the air who was, in fact, Mr Wilson. Mr Wilson had called 000 and was able to give the police a description of the car and the registration number.

On 6 January 2007, the police interviewed the accused. The prosecution relies upon this interview for the purposes of establishing the knowledge and intent on the part…

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 Christopher Darryl Mann

Details

AGLC: R v Christopher Darryl Mann [2009] ACTSC 5
Case: [2009] ACTSC 5
Decision Date: 9 February 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Christopher Darryl Mann involved the accused, who was charged with being an accessory after the fact to aggravated robbery. The matter was heard in the Magistrates Court of the Australian Capital Territory. The accused was alleged to have provided assistance to an offender after the commission of an aggravated robbery by knowingly and intentionally helping the offender evade apprehension.

The court was required to determine whether the accused had the requisite knowledge and intent to be considered an accessory after the fact, as defined by section 717 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT). Specifically, the court had to ascertain whether the accused had actual knowledge that the offence had been committed and whether they intended to assist the offender in evading apprehension.

The court found that the prosecution had not established the fault elements beyond reasonable doubt. It was determined that while the accused may have provided assistance to the offender, there was insufficient evidence to prove that the accused knew the offence had been committed and intended to assist in evading apprehension. Consequently, the court acquitted the accused, concluding that the prosecution had failed to meet the burden of proof.

No further orders were made by the court.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The accused be acquitted.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.