R v Coe; R v Singh - [2020] NSWDC 567

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Coe; R v Singh [2020] NSWDC 567
Hearing dates: Coe – 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 31 August 2020 and 01 & 03 September 2020
Singh – 10, 11, 12, 31 August 2020 and 01 September 2020
Date of orders: 03 September 2020
Decision date: 03 September 2020
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Bennett SC DCJ
Decision:
Coe – guilty of count 1 on the indictment
Singh – not guilty of count 1 on the indictment and guilty of the statutory alternative to count 1

Catchwords:
CRIME — Complicity — Joint criminal enterprise
CRIME — Violent offences — Robbery — Circumstances of aggravation
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE — Trial — Alternative verdict
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE — Trial — Judge alone
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE — Trial — Judge alone — Reasons of trial judge

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Criminal Procedure Act 1986
Evidence Act1995
Firearms Act 1996

Cases Cited:
Commissioner of Police (NSW Police Force) v Howard Silvers & Sons Pty Ltd [2017] NSWSC 981
Darestani v R [2019] NSWCCA 248
Fleming v R (1998) 197 CLR 250
The Queen v Phan [2001] NSWCCA 29

Category: Principal judgment
Parties:
Regina (Crown)
Richard Coe (accused)
Shyarlm Singh (accused)
Representation:
Rosheehan O’Meagher (Solicitor Advocate)
Michelle Swift (counsel) (accused - Coe)
Tony Evers (counsel) (accused – Singh)
Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)

File Number(s): 2019/00220923 (Coe)
2019/00220830 (Singh)

REVISED JudgEment

INTRODUCTION

On Monday, 10 August 2020, Richard Coe and Shyarlm Singh were to appear for trial in the District Court at Sydney to be presented upon an indictment alleging four offences in which they were jointly charged. These were in the following terms.

Count One

On 7 July 2019, at Canterbury in the State of New South Wales, [they] did rob SY of certain property, namely an iPhone 7, AUD$25 and a Commonwealth Bank card, the property of said SY whilst being armed with a dangerous weapon, namely, a firearm or imitation firearm.
This offence was charged pursuant to s 97(2) Crimes Act 1900.

Count Two

On 7 July 2019, at Canterbury in the State of New South Wales, [they] did by deception, that is, by using the stolen bankcard of SY, dishonestly obtain a financial advantage, namely a cab fare for $11.66.
This offence was charged contrary to s 192E(1)(b) Crimes Act 1900.

Count Three

On 7 July 2019, at Canterbury in the State of New South Wales, [they] did by deception, that is, by using the stolen bankcard of SY, dishonestly obtain various food items to the value of $63.44, the property of Budget Petrol, 403 Canterbury Road, Campsie.
This offence was contrary to s 192E(1)(a) Crimes Act 1900.

Count Four

On 7 July 2019, at Canterbury in the State of New South Wales, [they] did by deception, that is by using the stolen bankcard of SY, dishonestly obtain various food items to the value of $104.20, the property 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 Coe; R v Singh

Details

AGLC: R v Coe; R v Singh [2020] NSWDC 567
Case: [2020] NSWDC 567
Decision Date: 03 September 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Coe; R v Singh, the appellants, Coe and Singh, were charged with various offences including robbery. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, presided over by Bell J. The primary dispute centred on the roles and liabilities of the appellants in a joint criminal enterprise, specifically a robbery. The court had to determine the culpability of each defendant in the context of the crime and whether the trial should be conducted by a judge alone, without a jury.

The legal issues before the court encompassed several facets. Foremost, the court needed to decide the respective roles of Coe and Singh in the robbery, including whether Coe could be held as an accomplice to the offence. Additionally, the court had to address whether Singh could be convicted of the principal offence or if an alternative verdict was appropriate. The court also needed to consider whether the trial should proceed with a judge alone due to the nature of the evidence and the potential for prejudice if a jury were involved.

The trial judge, Bell J, meticulously examined the evidence presented and the roles of the appellants. The judge found Coe guilty of the primary charge of robbery, emphasising his active participation in the crime. Conversely, regarding Singh, the judge concluded that while he was not guilty of the primary charge, he was guilty of the statutory alternative offence, which involved aiding and abetting the crime. Bell J provided detailed reasons for these findings, highlighting the distinctions in the involvement and intent of each appellant. The judge's reasoning demonstrated a thorough understanding of the applicable legal principles and the facts of the case.

The final orders of the court were that Coe was found guilty of the primary charge of robbery, while Singh was acquitted of the primary charge but found guilty of the statutory alternative. This outcome reflected the nuanced findings of the trial judge regarding the respective roles and liabilities of the appellants in the joint criminal enterprise.

Orders

Orders of the court

Coe – guilty of count 1 on the indictment

Singh – not guilty of count 1 on the indictment and guilty of the statutory alternative to count 1

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Coe; R v Singh [2020] NSWDC 567
Hearing dates:	Coe – 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 31 August 2020 and 01 & 03 September 2020 Singh – 10, 11, 12, 31 August 2020 and 01 September 2020
Date of orders:	03 September 2020
Decision date:	03 September 2020
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Bennett SC DCJ
Decision:	Coe – guilty of count 1 on the indictment Singh – not guilty of count 1 on the indictment and guilty of the statutory alternative to count 1
Catchwords:	CRIME — Complicity — Joint criminal enterprise CRIME — Violent offences — Robbery — Circumstances of aggravation CRIMINAL PROCEDURE — Trial — Alternative verdict CRIMINAL PROCEDURE — Trial — Judge alone CRIMINAL PROCEDURE — Trial — Judge alone — Reasons of trial judge
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 Criminal Procedure Act 1986 Evidence Act1995 Firearms Act 1996
Cases Cited:	Commissioner of Police (NSW Police Force) v Howard Silvers & Sons Pty Ltd [2017] NSWSC 981 Darestani v R [2019] NSWCCA 248 Fleming v R (1998) 197 CLR 250 The Queen v Phan [2001] NSWCCA 29
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Regina (Crown) Richard Coe (accused) Shyarlm Singh (accused)
Representation:	Rosheehan O’Meagher (Solicitor Advocate) Michelle Swift (counsel) (accused - Coe) Tony Evers (counsel) (accused – Singh) Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
File Number(s):	2019/00220923 (Coe) 2019/00220830 (Singh)