R v Collins

[2018] ACTSC 204

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

R v Collins

Citation:

[2018] ACTSC 204

Hearing Dates:

24-27 July 2018

DecisionDate:

9 August 2018

Before:

Mossop J

Decision:

See [119]

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Trial – trial by judge alone – aggravated robbery – whether accused had a knife at the time of the robbery – whether accused stole mobile phone – whether accused made threats against the complainant at the time of the robbery – verdict of guilty entered  

Legislation Cited:

Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), ss 310(b), 369A

Evidence Act 2011 (ACT), ss 165, 165(2)

Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT), s 68C

Cases Cited:

R v Connors (No 2) [2016] ACTSC 333

R v DM [2010] ACTSC 137

R v Mulcahy [2010] ACTSC 98

Parties:

The Queen (Crown)

Brett Collins (Accused)

Representation:

Counsel

T Hickey (Crown)

S McLaughlin (Accused)

Solicitors

ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)

Legal Aid ACT (Accused)

File Number:

SCC 280B of 2017

MOSSOP J:

Introduction

1. Brett Collins has been charged with one count of aggravated robbery contrary to s 310(b) of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT). He is alleged to have robbed another man, who I will refer to as EN or the complainant, on 7 April 2017. The Crown alleges that the accused robbed EN of his motor vehicle as well as his mobile phone.

1. The circumstances alleged by the Crown that give rise to the allegation of aggravated robbery are that the accused is alleged to have had a knife with him which he used to threaten EN at the time of the robbery. Section 369A of the Criminal Code provides that an alternative verdict upon a charge of aggravated robbery is one of robbery. 

1. Upon arraignment, the accused indicated that he pleaded guilty to robbery of the motor vehicle but not guilty to aggravated robbery.  He also denied that he had robbed the complainant of his mobile phone and that he had made any threats to the complainant as alleged by the Crown.

1. As a consequence, the principal issues over which there was a contest at trial was whether, at the time of the robbery, the accused had a knife in his possession, whether he stole the complainant’s mobile phone and whether, at the time of the robbery, he made threats against the complainant.

Directions

1. Section 68C of the Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT) requires that in a trial by judge alone the judge give himself or herself the directions that would be given to the jury if the trial was being conducted before a jury.

1. In R v Mulcahy [2010] ACTSC 98 at [13]–[24], Nield AJ, when conducting a judge alone trial, gave himself directions about his role. The directions were adopted by Refshauge J in R v DM [2010] ACTSC 137 at [9]. Nield AJ set out the directions as follows:

13.A criminal trial is governed by rules. The fundamental rules are designed to ensure that an accused person receives a fair trial…