R v Collins
[2018] ACTSC 204
•9 August 2018
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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 according to law. The fundamental rules which govern a criminal trial are these.
14.The Crown bears the onus, burden or obligation, to use three interchangeable words, to prove the guilt of the accused. The Crown has asserted that the accused has committed a criminal offence, therefore the Crown must prove that the accused committed that offence. The accused does not have to prove that he did not commit that offence.
15.The level or standard of proof required in a criminal trial is proof beyond reasonable doubt. The accused cannot be found to be guilty of the offence unless the evidence, which I accept, satisfies me beyond reasonable doubt of his guilt.
16.The accused is presumed by law to be innocent of the offence with which he stands charged unless and until the evidence which I accept satisfies me beyond reasonable doubt of his guilt. If the evidence which I accept satisfies me beyond reasonable doubt of his guilt, then he loses the presumption of innocence and the appropriate verdict is guilty. If, however, the evidence which I accept fails to satisfy me beyond reasonable doubt of his guilt, then he remains presumed to be innocent and the appropriate verdict is not guilty.
17.In addition to the fundamental rules which govern a criminal trial, the following rules have been developed.
18.As I am the judge of the facts, as well as the judge of the law, I must bring an open and unbiased mind to the evidentiary material. I must view that material coldly, clinically and dispassionately, and I must not let emotion enter into the decision-making process, because both the Crown and the accused are entitled to my verdict free of partiality or prejudice, favour or ill will.
19.I must determine whether each of the witnesses is a reliable witness. That is, whether the witness has an accurate memory of the event about which the witness has given evidence.
20.I must determine the relevant facts according to the evidentiary material, considered logically and rationally, without acting capriciously or irrationally.
21.I may use my common sense, my individual experience and wisdom, in assessing the evidence given by the witnesses.
22.I am not required by any rule of law, logic or common sense to accept a witness wholly or to reject a witness wholly. I can accept everything that a witness has said if I consider all of it worthy of acceptance, or I can reject everything that a witness has said if I consider none of it worthy of acceptance, or I can accept that part of what a witness said that I consider worthy of acceptance and reject the rest of what that witness said as I consider it unworthy of acceptance.
23. The accused gave evidence on oath. He was not required to do so; he could have elected not to give evidence. By giving evidence he became a witness in his trial. His evidence is not any better or any worse than the evidence of other witnesses in his trial simply because he is the accused. His evidence falls to be considered in the same way as the evidence of the other witnesses in his trial falls to be considered. However, by giving evidence he did not assume any burden, onus or obligation to prove anything in his trial.
24.In a criminal trial the Crown must prove the essential elements of the charge beyond reasonable doubt. The Crown does not have to prove everything about which evidence has been given beyond reasonable doubt.
I adopt these directions in relation to my role in the present case. See also R v Connors (No 2) [2016] ACTSC 333 at [6]–[8]. I also give myself the following additional directions.
The complainant and the accused gave different versions of what happened. The appropriate question for me to ask is not which witness should be believed. Even if I prefer the evidence of the complainant, I should not convict unless I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the truth of the complainant’s evidence. Even if I do not believe the accused, I cannot find an issue against him if his evidence gives rise to a reasonable doubt on that issue.
In this case, the Crown case on the critical issues is largely based upon the evidence of the complainant. In those circumstances, I must exercise caution. I must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the complainant is both an honest and accurate witness in the account that he has given. I need to examine the evidence very carefully in order to satisfy myself that I may safely act upon that evidence to the high standard required in a criminal trial. I must do so because the onus and standard of proof placed upon the Crown is a high one.
A significant portion of the evidence given in this case was directed to complaints made by the complainant to his girlfriend, to Senior Constable Daniel Vickers and during a telephone call to an unidentified police phone operator on 7 April 2017. Those complaints included that the robbery occurred at knife point and that, in addition to being robbed of his vehicle, the complainant was also robbed of his mobile phone. I am entitled to use that evidence of complaint as some evidence independent of the complainant as to what occurred. The Crown also asserted that the time and manner in which the complaints were made to these people about the robbery makes the complainant’s evidence more believable. I must consider whether the complainant acted in a way that he would be expected to act if he had been robbed as he said he was. If I think that the complainant has done what I would expect someone in his position to do, then I may place more weight upon the complainant’s evidence. However, if I consider that he did not act in a way that he might have been expected to act, then that may indicate that his evidence is unreliable. I must bear in mind, however, that the fact that a person says something on more than one occasion does not mean that what is said is necessarily true or accurate.
I was asked to give myself a direction under s 165 of the Evidence Act 2011 (ACT). Even though that section itself does not require the directions to be given in a trial by judge alone, because of the terms of s 68C of the Supreme Court Act, I must give myself a relevant direction if requested to do so: see s 165(2) of the Evidence Act. In the present case, the subject matter of the direction that was sought was in relation to hearsay evidence. The significant hearsay evidence in the present case is the evidence of complaints made to the girlfriend of the complainant, who I will refer to as ON, to Senior Constable Vickers and to the police phone operator who took the call to police operations on 7 April 2017. I warn myself that hearsay evidence may well be unreliable and that particular caution needs to be taken in assessing the nature of the evidence in order to determine whether or not, in the circumstances, it should be considered to be reliable or unreliable.
A number of witnesses gave evidence via audiovisual link. So far as the evidence given by the complainant was concerned, the giving of evidence in that manner is the usual practice in the Australian Capital Territory and I must not draw any adverse inference against the accused as a result of evidence being given in that manner. Nor must I give the evidence any greater or lesser weight than would be the case if the evidence had been given in person in court. Two other witnesses also gave evidence by audiovisual link. This was done with the consent of both parties. I do not draw any adverse inference against the accused as a result of the adoption of that course and nor do I give the evidence any greater or lesser weight than I would had it been given by the witness in person in court.
Statutory provisions
The relevant provisions of the Criminal Code are as follows:
308 Theft
A person commits an offence (theft) if the person dishonestly appropriates property belonging to someone else with the intention of permanently depriving the other person of the property.
Maximum penalty: 1 000 penalty units, imprisonment for 10 years or both.
NoteFor alternative verdict provisions applying to this offence, see s 370, s 371 and s 372.
309 Robbery
A person commits an offence (robbery) if—
(a) the person commits theft; and
(b) when committing the theft, or immediately before or immediately after committing the theft, the person—
(i) uses force on someone else; or
(ii) threatens to use force then and there on someone else;
with intent to commit theft or to escape from the scene.
Maximum penalty: 1 400 penalty units, imprisonment for 14 years or both.
NoteTheft means an offence against s 308 or s 321.
310 Aggravated robbery
A person commits an offence (aggravated robbery) if the person—
(a) commits robbery in company with 1 or more people; or
(b) commits robbery and, at the time of the robbery, has an offensive weapon with him or her.
Maximum penalty: 2 500 penalty units, imprisonment for 25 years or both.
NoteRobbery means an offence against s 309.
369A Alternative verdicts—aggravated robbery and robbery
(1) This section applies if, in a prosecution for aggravated robbery, the trier of fact is not satisfied that the defendant committed the offence but is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant committed robbery.
(2) The trier of fact may find the defendant guilty of robbery, but only if the defendant has been given procedural fairness in relation to that finding of guilt.
In order to establish the offence of aggravated robbery it is necessary for the Crown to prove beyond reasonable doubt:
(a)the accused appropriated something: s 308;
(b)the something that is appropriated is “property”: s 308;
(c)the property belongs to another person: s 308;
(d)the appropriation is dishonest according to the standards of ordinary people: s 308;
(e)at the time the accused appropriated the property, the accused intended to permanently deprive the person to whom the property belongs of the property: s 308;
(f)when the theft (constituted by (a)-(e) above) occurred, the accused used force on someone else or threatened to use force on someone else: s 309(b); and
(g)the accused had an offensive weapon with him at the time of committing the robbery (constituted by (a)-(f) above): s 310(b).
In the light of the manner in which the case was conducted, of these elements only (a) and (g) were the subject of significant contest. Element (a) was in issue because the accused did not admit to stealing the phone. Element (g) was in issue because the accused did not admit that he had a knife with him at the time of the robbery.
The complainant
The complainant, EN, gave evidence that he is a chef and as at early 2017 was the part owner of a restaurant business. He said that he conducted his business affairs through a company of which he was the sole director. He was provided with a company car by that company. This car was a Holden HSV Maloo 2014 model. The company acquired the vehicle in October 2014. The purchase price of the vehicle was $87,000, but including insurance, extended warranty and interest costs that were incurred as part of the lease agreement, the total cost of the vehicle was $110,000. The lease payments on the vehicle were about $500 per week.
At the time he purchased it, the vehicle was fully insured. However, because of some cash flow difficulties he had, as at April 2017, permitted the comprehensive insurance to lapse.
In his role as a chef he would routinely finish work late, between midnight and 1:30am. He would then go out for a drink at a pub or a club. He met a woman called Rebecca, also referred to as Bec, at those pubs or clubs, usually at those where there were poker machines. They had some mutual friends. He did not know her surname. He would see her about once or twice a week and would talk to her for 15 or 20 minutes. Eight to 12 weeks prior to 7 April 2017, she told him that she was in a “tight situation” and asked to borrow approximately $1000 from him. He lent her about $800. He was hesitant to do so because he did not know her well. However, she left him with a diamond ring which she said was her grandmother’s and of sentimental value.
Rebecca said that he would get the money back in a day or two. However, he did not see her again. He tried to contact her via Facebook but received no reply. He became resigned to the fact that it “wasn't the wisest decision” to lend her the money.
On the night of 6 April 2017, he received a message from her apologising and asking him whether he still had the ring. He replied that he did. The next morning there were further communications on Facebook and they arranged to meet at Kingston, outside his apartment.
His apartment was on the first floor. He went down to meet her at the front of the building on Leichhardt Street. He saw nobody at the door. He went to the back entrance of the building and walked out that door but saw no one. He sent her a message and she responded that she was out the front. He went out the front door and somebody approached him from the right. That person was the accused, although the complainant had not met the accused before and did not know who he was. The accused said, “Are you [EN]?” and the complainant said that he was. The accused introduced himself as “James”. The complainant asked, “Where’s Bec?”. He said, “She's not here, but I’ve got the cash. Do you have the ring”.
The complainant felt uneasy because he had expected to be meeting Rebecca and somebody else had appeared.
He asked him to come inside the building and told him that the ring was down in his car. In fact, it was in a lockbox in his pocket. He said that he adopted this course because he knew that there were cameras in the foyer and the carpark and that there would be people around getting ready to go to work on a Friday morning.
The complainant told James (the accused) to jump into the car and he would give him a lift back up. He asked the accused where Rebecca was. The accused said that she was upset and had taken her dog for a walk around the block. The complainant gave him the ring. They drove out to street level. The accused called somebody and was describing what the ring look like. The complainant assumed that this was Rebecca. The complainant drove round the block while the accused was on the phone. After the call had finished, there was awkward small talk and the complainant suggested to the accused that his name wasn’t really James and he agreed. They pulled into a laneway at the side of the complainant’s apartment complex because the accused’s car was parked there.
As they pulled up, the accused hadn’t produced any money. At that stage, the complainant said that he knew that there was no money. The accused had a pocket knife in his hand. He was flicking it open and closed. He had produced it from his pocket just as the car pulled up. In oral evidence, he described the knife as having a three inch blade. In his previous statement to police he had described it as having a 12-15cm blade. He described it as having a skeleton handle, being metal but without any timber or plastic on the handle itself.
He then said that the accused told him to log out of iCloud and give him his phone. The complainant logged out of his emails but not out of iCloud and passed the phone to the accused. The accused saw what he had done and said, “Don’t fuck around. Log out of it properly”. He may also have told him to turn the pass code off.
The complainant was unsure whether he had asked for the money. However, he thought that he did not having regard to the production of the knife. The accused said something about “disrespecting” Rebecca. The complainant said that he had done nothing but been decent and lent money to her given that he hardly knew her.
When he had logged out of iCloud the accused demanded the phone from him and the complainant gave it to him. The accused then demanded that he give him the keys to the car. The complainant was understandably hesitant to do so. He tried to make light of the situation saying something like: “I’m not giving you the keys. Like this car is my baby.” That was in fact how he felt about the car. He gave evidence that he thought that people’s attachment to their vehicles was ridiculous until he owned that car. The accused then said words to the effect, “I’m not fucking around. Give us the keys and get the fuck out”. At that time he had the knife. The complainant said something to the effect that he should come back tomorrow and he would at least then have the car insured. The complainant said that at this point the accused was worked up and told him, “Give us the keys or you’re going to get hurt”. He gave him the keys and they both got out of the car. The accused walked around to the front of the car and said words to the effect, “I don’t know if you know who I am”, “You tell anybody about this, you call the cops” and “I’ll fucking kill you and your pretty girlfriend”. He then told him to “turn around and fuck off”.
The complainant returned to his unit and asked his girlfriend if he could use her phone. He tried to call his own phone and there was no answer. He also called Rebecca on the Facebook Messenger app. At some point, she answered and he demanded that she get him his car back. She said she did not know the accused was going to take it.
The complainant told his girlfriend what had happened but not in detail. She “freaked out” and started crying.
He took his girlfriend’s car and drove around Kingston, seeing if he could see his ute. He then had to attend a finance meeting in relation to the restaurant business. He attended the meeting for about an hour at 11am. He then drove around Kingston, Manuka and The Causeway for somewhere between half an hour and one hour looking for the car before returning to the apartment. He explained in more detail to his girlfriend what had happened and explained the threats that had been made.
He described himself as being in shock and unsure as to how to deal with the issue. He was cautious about going to police because of the threats that had been made.
He looked on Facebook at acquaintances of Rebecca’s. He found a picture of a person who he identified as the person who had stolen the car and that was the accused. He did this search prior to contacting police.
In order to find out how to proceed, he emailed Senior Constable Vickers, who had pulled him over previously and had a discussion with him. He had his card. He wanted to get advice on the best way to report the matter to police. He was concerned not to have police in uniform turn up at the unit in case the man who had robbed and threatened him was watching. He was very cautious because of the threat that was made to him. The police officer called him and said that he had to “call it in” but that he could ask the police not to come to his house.
Subsequently, he did call the police on the general Australian Capital Territory (ACT) policing number and reported the incident to them. The audio of that call was recorded and became Exhibit 3. At that stage, he said he just wanted to establish that his car had been taken.
He subsequently spoke to his mobile phone provider, Vodafone, in relation to the theft of his phone and obtained information about making a claim on his phone insurance. He also attempted to remotely wipe the data from the phone but was not sure whether that had been successful.
Later that day, notwithstanding that he had indicated in his telephone call to the ACT policing number that he did not want police in uniform attending his premises, they did in fact attend his apartment in uniform. He told them what happened. He subsequently signed a written statement on 13 April 2017.
He had made enquiries and searches about the car and provided information that he obtained to police. His car had not been recovered.
The messages that he exchanged with Rebecca on Facebook were not able to be recovered because they had been programmed to disappear after a particular period. That course was adopted because there were “a couple of” communications in relation to illegal drugs. He could not recall whether he had been asked about why the messages were not available by the police and could not recall what he had told them.
In cross‑examination he admitted that he had not mentioned his own drug use to the police. He admitted that Rebecca had, on occasion, acquired drugs for him and that he had sometimes provided drugs for her. He agreed with the proposition that he had consciously sought to take any drug aspect out of the matter when he was speaking to police and explained that was because “there was no drug involvement with the actual car being taken”. It was suggested to him that he had taken the accused into the carpark not because he wanted to take him to an area with closed-circuit television (CCTV) cameras, but because he wanted to take him to somewhere out of sight. He did not accept that proposition. He was cross-examined about his earlier statements which were consistent with his keys being demanded first and then his phone and also about the difference in his estimate of the length of the blade of the knife with which he said he had been threatened. He accepted that at various times he had estimated the amount lent to Rebecca as $800, $850 or $900. He agreed that there had been some mention of swapping drugs for the ring. He thought that occurred the night before. He agreed with the proposition that the accused had produced what appeared to be approximately a gram of methylamphetamine when the two of them were in his car in the carpark. He denied that they had smoked a small quantity of methylamphetamine while there. He agreed that he hadn’t mentioned the presence of the methylamphetamine prior to giving evidence in court.
In re-examination he explained that he concealed his drug use because he was, at the time, a business owner, that he was a bit ashamed and that his girlfriend did not know at the time that he was “sort of a somewhat regular user”. He agreed that the accused, by showing him the bag of what appeared to be methylamphetamine, was implying that he was going to give him that but said, “That’s as far as it went”.
ON
ON was the complainant’s girlfriend. Her evidence was that Friday, 7 April 2017, was a public holiday or a day on which she did not have to go to work. She was present with the complainant in their unit. She said that the complainant had said he would be back in a second, went to the spare room and then to the door and left the unit. She subsequently heard the distinctive noise of his car turn on and drive away. About 10 minutes later, the complainant returned to the unit and asked to borrow her phone. His hands were shaking. He then did something on her phone. He told her that the car had been stolen at knife point. She described him as looking like “a bit of a ghost” with a blank expression. His voice was quivering. She reacted worse than him and started crying and pacing around. He told her that someone else in the car made him give him his phone and sign out of iCloud and that the person was Rebecca’s friend. They went to the balcony to listen for the sound of the vehicle. She could not recall the exact conversation that occurred there. They then discussed what to do. She was conscious that every minute or hour counted. She told him that he had to call the police. He did not want to. The complainant said that the person who robbed him had said words to the effect that he would come back if he told police, that he would regret it, or he would return and kill them. He appeared to her to be scared, having lost all the colour in his face, and desperate.
In cross-examination she referred to him shaking when he came in and asked her to use her phone. She was asked questions about how he appeared when, on one previous occasion, she had observed him under the influence of ice (methylamphetamine). She said that he was not particularly different to how he appeared normally. She disagreed with the proposition that he had never mentioned, prior to going to his meeting, that he was concerned about the man returning. She also disagreed with the proposition that he never mentioned a knife. She gave evidence that although she came to the conclusion a bit earlier that the car was not coming back, he took longer, saying that they would bring it back, that they were just trying to scare him and that they may go for a joyride and leave it somewhere. He did not accept so readily that they would steal it. It was suggested to her that was the reason why he did not call police, but she said that he told her from the beginning that the threat was the reason he did not want to call the police. She said that there was no reference to drugs on the day.
In re-examination she said that the threat was that, “If you tell the police, I will fucking come back and kill you”, which was more consistent with a threat being directed to him rather than both of them. She said the threat “resonated so much that we were scared to go - to leave the house for months”.
In relation to the possibility that the condition in which the complainant returned from dealing with the accused was caused by ice, she said:
“I can tell the difference between someone who is affected by ice, and the difference between someone who is petrified because they’ve had a knife pulled on them, and that their car has been taken. … The difference is one is you’re not in a good place. The other one you probably are. Like, he wasn’t in a very comfortable state, and he was completely distracted by this incident ...”
Transcript of complaint to police
A transcript of the call to police operations made by the complainant on 7 April 2017 was provided as an aide memoire to Exhibit 3. The transcript ran over 20 pages. His initial complaint was, “I need to report my vehicle as being stolen”. Early in the conversation he said:
It was actually this morning. Um, I’ve been too afraid to report it since, um, so---
Why is that?
Ah, because it was at knifepoint and I was told if I call the police then they will come to my house and kill me.
He was asked whether he owed them money, he said, “No, no, actually the – the other way round, funnily enough.”
In response to questions by the ACT police operator, he gave a detailed version of events. He described the threat that was made against him as being:
I don’t know if you know who I am, um, but if you call the police or say my name, I will come to your house and kill you.
During the course of the conversation, he was asked whether or not he was involved in drugs or anything like that. He said that he was not but he knew people that were involved with drugs and that he had explored drugs in his younger years. He said that he was a chef and so it was all around him. He made no admission of use of drugs or any involvement of drugs in relation to the incident.
TQ
TQ stated that she was dating the accused and living with him at the time. In May 2017 she recalled that police executed a search warrant at her house. During the search, she was shown still photos taken from CCTV footage and stated that the photos looked like they were the accused. She identified the black Adidas jumper, camouflage pants and t-shirt that the person in the photographs was wearing and provided them to police.
Richard Rapson
Mr Rapson was a facilities manager who was responsible for the apartment complex where the complainant lived. He had prepared a map showing the positions of CCTV cameras which were in place in April 2017. Only three cameras were working as at that date. Another was fully installed but not working. Others were in the process of being installed but were not operational. He said that he had provided all available footage from the day to police.
Senior Constable Vickers
Senior Constable Vickers assisted Senior Constable Nathan Bakes in relation to the investigation. He first had contact with the complainant when, a number of weeks earlier, he had stopped his motor vehicle for a minor traffic infringement. The infringement was that he had failed to indicate when coming out of a driveway. He was not issued any traffic infringement notice in relation to that incident and the policeman spoke to him about that matter and other matters. He had given the complainant a business card because he thought that, having regard to his work, he may be able to provide him with information about suspicious activity in the Kingston area.
On 7 April 2017, Senior Constable Vickers received an email from the complainant. The complainant indicated that he had been robbed and was scared and that he wanted Senior Constable Vickers to contact him. Senior Constable Vickers returned the call at 5:39pm that day. He took detailed notes of that conversation as it occurred. Those notes were taken in his police notebook and taken, as best he could, at the time of the conversation. The notes included a complaint that the robber had pulled a knife and demanded the key from him. The complainant had tried to reason with him and that he had ultimately given him the key. The notes recorded a demand to give him the phone and to log out of iCloud and everything. It included that he had been threatened, that the robber knew where the complainant lived and worked, that he was prepared to do time and go to prison and that he would just “get someone else to do it”. In that conversation he identified who he suspected it was based on his Facebook investigation and included a description of the knife, namely, that it had a “frame style handle” and a blade of approximately 12-15cm.
The complainant had described a blue-green Holden Commodore which is a vehicle which the officer had seen earlier that day in relation to another investigation. The officer had observed through the windscreen of that car a receipt showing a purchase from a particular shop in Narrabundah at 8:21am that morning. He later obtained CCTV footage from that shop so as to identify who was purchasing items at that time. Images from that footage, as well as images from the CCTV footage from the apartment complex, were shown to TQ and she identified the accused and the clothing shown in that footage as belonging to the accused.
He subsequently took a statement from the complainant on 13 April 2017.
He created an activity log based upon CCTV footage taken from the apartments. That log was provided as an aide memoire to the Court to assist it to make sense of the CCTV footage from near the Kingston apartments which was in evidence.
As a result of the conversation, Senior Constable Vickers made phone calls to a more senior officer and to police operations. He called the complainant back and advised him to report the matter to police. He then forwarded the complainant’s details to police operations. He had subsequent involvement, including being provided with information from the complainant about where the car might be located.
Senior Constable Vickers said that he had told the complainant to be completely honest with him. He did not ask him specifically whether drugs had been supplied as between the complainant and Rebecca, but the complainant was asked to be completely honest if there was any involvement with her at that time. During the course of the investigation, the complainant did not bring up his own drug use. He did say, however, that Rebecca may sell some drugs. He also said that he had used drugs when he was younger.
TC
TC had been spoken to by police in April 2018. She had been shown two images from 7 April 2017, one of which showed herself and the accused next to the accused’s vehicle while it was parked in the laneway, next to the complainant’s apartment block. The other one was a close-up of her. She also identified the accused from still images taken from a grocery store in Narrabundah. She had been living in an apartment in Kingston with two other people. (She had been there with the accused on the morning of 7 April 2017, but decamped over the balcony when the premises were about to be searched by police.)
After decamping from the apartment in Kingston, TC and the accused then went to the Narrabundah shops to get some drinks and had a conversation. She said that he had told her that a man would not give a ring back to a friend of his and he was going to see him and get the ring back. The ring belonged to a friend of the accused that she knew as “big nose Bec”. She said that he did speak about a car but that he did not say that he was going to take it or anything. She described them as always speaking “crap”. She spoke to him later that afternoon. She said that nothing was brought up about the ring. She recalled that she and the accused spoke “canteen talk”, that is they spoke in a tough manner but it was not like anything was actually going to happen. She said she had described what he was going to do as a “stand-over hand-over”, but they were her words not his. She could not remember what words he had used. She had remembered him saying that “if he’s got a phone, I’ll take his phone” but she described that as “canteen talk”, “Like, he’s just talking crap” and “everyone talks that crap in that sort of gang”. She said that she only learnt that anything had actually happened when police pulled her in to the station and spoke to her in 2018.
In cross-examination she was reminded that she had described the accused as a “plastic gangster” by which she meant, “Like a wannabe, like someone who talks a whole lot of yeah crap, says they’re going do stuff and like gangsters.” She agreed that her recollection of the events was not great. In her evidence in cross-examination, for example, she said, “Yeah, I’ve got a very, very bad memory. Like, it takes me a little bit of time to you know, but yeah like.” She agreed that it could have been in a completely different conversation that he talked to her about a phone or a car.
Senior Constable Bakes
Senior Constable Bakes was the lead investigator in the case. He obtained various telephone records relating to the complainant’s telephone number. Those records were tendered. The significant parts of the phone records that were relied upon by the Crown were:
a)11:33am on 7 April 2017, a call from the complainant’s number to the number associated with Rebecca;
b)11:38am on 7 April 2017, a MMS (multimedia messaging service) message from the complainant’s number to the number associated with Rebecca.
The Crown said that these calls were significant in that the complainant gave evidence that he did not have Rebecca’s phone number and communicated with her only through the Facebook Messenger app.
There were three calls on 7 April 2017, made from ON’s phone number to the complainant’s phone number at 12:36, 1:44 and 3:14pm. The Crown said that this evidence was consistent with the evidence of the complainant and ON about making calls to the complainant’s phone after the robbery.
The accused
The accused gave evidence that he had known Rebecca for five years. As at April 2017, he was in a sexual relationship with her and stated he was about to move in with her. He said that he was with her until about 6am on the morning of 7 April 2017 and he then went to TC’s apartment in Kingston. There was at least one other person there, a woman called Renee.
He had with him about 1.4g of methylamphetamine which he had obtained from Rebecca. His instruction had been to give a gram to the complainant in exchange for the ring.
He, TC and Renee all consumed methylamphetamine, using three or four points (0.3‑0.4g). Their activities were disrupted when police executed a search warrant at the premises. The accused and TC decamped over the balcony of the unit and escaped. The accused did so because he was carrying the methylamphetamine, and TC told him that there was an arrest warrant for her.
They went to the Narrabundah shops where they bought a drink (and were captured on CCTV). The black Adidas jumper, the white t-shirt and the camouflage pants, which were subsequently found by police at TQ’s address in Holt, all belonged to the accused and he was wearing them on 7 April 2017. After the shops, they went to some flats in Narrabundah and visited a person called Kelly and waited there until the police had completed the execution of the search warrant at TC’s apartment in Kingston. The accused then dropped TC back to her apartment. He could not recall what he did after that, but at about 10am he met the complainant, who he had not met before.
The accused identified the complainant because he was, at the time, on the phone to Rebecca who had told him that the complainant was at the front of the unit block. He said that he told the complainant that he had something for him and that they caught the lift down to the carpark and sat in the complainant’s car. He said he took the methylamphetamine from a satchel bag that he had and he and the complainant smoked some ice in order to test the quality of the substance. He said he produced the pipe from his pocket and that the complainant smoked it first. When that was done, the complainant produced the ring from a lock box. He said that the complainant said that he was not happy with the amount that he was getting for the ring and that he said that was what he had been given. The accused then described that the complainant was “mouthing off” about Rebecca. The complainant offered him a lift back to his car and when out of the carpark, the accused spoke to Rebecca about the ring as they drove around for a couple of minutes. He said that because of what the complainant had said he was feeling agitated. He said that the complainant continued saying things about Rebecca after he had parked the car in the laneway and that as a consequence of what the complainant had said the accused was feeling agitated. He said that this was because he considered her to be family because she was his partner at the time. Because of that he said “now you have pissed me off” and, “Give me the key to the fucking car or I will punch your head in”. As a result, the complainant gave him the key and asked him not to take his car, telling him that it was not insured and he should wait before taking it. The accused said, “Get the fuck out of the car” and after they both got out of the car, the complainant was begging him to leave the car.
The accused denied having a knife in his hands. He denied demanding anything else. He denied making any further threats. He said that he did not at any stage give the car back.
He said that his discussion with TC prior to the incident involved saying that he had to get the ring back and that he told her afterwards what had occurred, namely, that he had taken the ring and the complainant’s car. He denied ever having spoken to TC about taking the complainant’s phone. He said that he took the ring to Rebecca and gave it to her.
In cross-examination he was asked about the fact that he was TQ’s boyfriend and lived with her and had all of his clothes there and shared a bedroom with her, yet on the other hand he had given evidence that he was in a sexual relationship with Rebecca. He said that he had not told TQ because it was “not relevant”.
He said that he was smoking methylamphetamine regularly, consuming on average three points per day. He said that a point would cost between $50 and $70. He said that he was not working and that he received Centrelink payments of about $600 a fortnight. He said that the drugs that he used did not cost him because he got methylamphetamine from Rebecca, who was a user who used more than him.
He said that he discussed the plan to recover the ring at about 5:30am on 7 April 2017 before he left Rebecca’s house. He had not slept that night because of his methylamphetamine use. Notwithstanding that the arrangement that was planned involved giving to the complainant an amount of 1g of methylamphetamine, Rebecca had given him 1.4g in a single bag. He said the gram was worth $500 at that time and he did not know that the complainant had lent Rebecca $800.
He could not explain why he told the complainant the lie that Rebecca was walking the dog (referred to at [24] above).
He said that there was no plan when he left the house about when the ring would be collected. He knew the complainant lived in Kingston but that was all.
He was asked what his plan was if the complainant did not give him the ring. He said that he would do nothing and that he was “just going to leave”.
He denied that he had made a call on the complainant’s phone to Rebecca after 11am that day.
He was asked about his knowledge of the strength of the prosecution case against him, in particular, the evidence identifying him as being the person who took the complainant’s vehicle. It was suggested to him that he knew that the only significant aspect of the incident that was not captured on CCTV was what occurred in the cabin of the vehicle. He said that he relied on his lawyers.
He was asked about his evidence that Rebecca provided ice to him. He said that prior to that, he obtained methylamphetamine without payment from other people that he knew who were dealing in it. He said that they had willingly given him methylamphetamine without requiring anything in return.
He said that following the taking of the vehicle he had received “phone calls from multiple people” that the police had been called. He said that he had left the vehicle in a “closed off Street” in Tuggeranong. He could not identify the street. He had left the keys in the vehicle. He said that he had wiped down the car to remove fingerprints. He had organised with a friend of his, Zach Mills, to follow him and pick him up in another vehicle. It was that vehicle which returned to his car, parked in the laneway at 1:48pm. He identified one of the people in the car with him as Zach Mills, who had died a few months ago, but could not recall who the other person was.
The accused said Rebecca had not explained why the ring was important to her. When he returned it to her, she did not say anything except thank you.
He confirmed that one of his children bore the name that was seen tattooed on the side of his neck on one of the CCTV clips that was in evidence.
The accused said that Rebecca had not explained why she did not go and get the ring herself, she just asked him to go. He did not know how she had communicated with the complainant. He had Rebecca’s number on his phone.
He could not explain why, if he had just smoked some of the methylamphetamine from Rebecca with TC and Renee, he smoked some of the methylamphetamine that he said he was giving to the complainant in exchange for the ring.
He said that after he had collected his bag from his car parked in the laneway, he rang TC and met her in Fyshwick to give her the key to his car so that she could park it where it would be safe. He said to her that he had taken the car off someone and that she said nothing. He said that her evidence that the first she knew of it was when she was told by the police was wrong.
He said that he was upset about what the complainant said about Rebecca because “I loved her”. He denied that he was saying that he cared so deeply because that was convenient. He said that the complainant had said she was a “lying, deceiving, worthless piece of shit”. Later he said that the complainant had described her as a “low life piece of shit”. He said that had the complainant, in response to the demand to hand over the keys, told him to “bugger off” that he would have hit him enough to get the car. He was invited to explain why, if he was so offended, he did not just punch the complainant. His explanation was that he “just took the key off him”.
He could not explain why there were incorrect Western Australia number plates on the vehicle that he was driving. He said that prior to leaving Rebecca’s, he had smoked a point of methylamphetamine. Therefore, there were three occasions where, on his version of events, he had consumed methylamphetamine, namely, prior to leaving Rebecca’s house, at TC’s house in the morning and in the carpark with the complainant.
He denied any plan to sell the vehicle.
He said that after going to Rebecca’s house, he went home to TQ’s house in Holt and changed. He then said that he drove round Belconnen.
He said he been called about the police about 12 noon. He could not recall where he was at that time. He said that he was a little bit panicked, enough to get rid of the car.
In re-examination he said that he did not use methylamphetamine anymore and that an average three points a day was about the peak of his ice usage.
CCTV footage
CCTV footage in evidence shows:
(a)9:58am: the accused parks his blue-green Holden Commodore in the alleyway between apartment blocks. He opens the door, puts on a jumper and walks off towards Leichhardt Street.
(b)10:02am: he walked back into view on the phone and gets into the car.
(c)10:07am: he gets out of the car and walks off towards Leichardt Street.
(d)10:17am: the complainant drives his black ute out of the carpark with a person sitting in the passenger seat.
(e)10:21am: the complainant drove his black ute past the blue-green Commodore and parks in the alleyway in front of it.
(f)10.25am: the driver and passenger doors of the black ute open.
(g)10:28am: driver gets out of the black ute. The passenger gets out of the black ute and walks around to the driver’s door and gets in.
(h)10:29am: the complainant walks back along the alleyway towards Leichhardt Street, the black ute drives off.
(i)10:31am: the black ute drives alongside the Commodore and stops. The accused gets out, opens the door of the Commodore, gets back into the black ute and drives off.
(j)1:48pm: a silver Ford Falcon drives into the alleyway and parked in front of blue‑green Commodore. The accused walks to the Commodore and looks in the window. A tattoo of a name that corresponds to the name of one of the accused’s children is visible on his neck.
Consideration
The complainant’s version of events is that having been surprised to meet the accused who he did not know, when he was expecting to meet Rebecca, he took him through the foyer and down into the carpark. The accused had said that he had the money. While in the car in the carpark, he provided the ring to the accused. The accused showed him a bag that looked like it had about 1g of methylamphetamine in it. He then drove him out of the carpark. The accused made a telephone call to someone the complainant assumed was Rebecca, describing the ring. After that telephone call ended, the complainant pulled into the laneway in front of the accused’s car. At that point, the mood of the accused changed and he accused the complainant of “disrespecting” Rebecca. The complainant tried to explain that he had done no such thing. The accused then produced the knife and flicked it open and closed in a way that the complainant found threatening. He then demanded his phone and that he log out of iCloud. When that was done, he demanded his keys. The complainant attempted to reason with him, but the accused continued to demand the keys. He handed over the keys. He got out of the car and was told to “fuck off”. The accused got out and walked around to get in the driver’s seat. There was a brief conversation between them. Either immediately before getting out of the car or when both were out of the car, the accused made the threats to the complainant about what would happen if he went to the police.
There were only limited areas where the evidence of the accused was different to that contended for by the Crown. The first was that the accused gave evidence that both smoked some methylamphetamine. The purpose of this was that the complainant wished to sample what he was being provided with. The complainant accepted the methylamphetamine but complained about the quantity of it. Then, both in the carpark and subsequent to the telephone conversation with Rebecca, the complainant said words which denigrated Rebecca and this led the accused to become angry with him. When parked in the laneway, because he was angry with him, the accused demanded his keys from him. He did not have a knife with him and did not threaten the complainant with a knife. He made no demand for, and did not take, the complainant’s iPhone. Further, he did not make any threat to him about what would happen if he contacted police.
In summary, on the critical questions whether the accused had a knife with him and whether he took the complainant’s mobile phone, I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that he did. Insofar as he denied those two facts, I do not accept his evidence. Further, his evidence does not cause me to have any reasonable doubt about the accuracy of the complainant’s evidence on those two issues. I make that finding conscious of the great care that needs to be taken in a case where, relevantly, those issues depend upon accepting the evidence of a single witness in the case, namely the complainant, beyond reasonable doubt. My reasons for those conclusions are as follows.
First, the complainant gave evidence in a plausible manner. He appeared to me to be attempting to tell the truth. His evidence was not overstated. He did not shy away from the limits of his own recollection or the fact that he had not told police the whole story about his own drug use. It was clear that he gave evidence without an awareness of the forensic significance of the subject matters about which he was being asked. He appeared to be genuinely mystified by the alternative scenarios put to him in cross‑examination involving the absence of a knife or any theft of the phone.
Second, his narrative of the events was generally a coherent one. The discrepancies between the evidence that he gave in court and the previous versions of his evidence were not such as to cast doubt upon the reliability of his evidence in relation to the knife or his phone. In particular, he was cross-examined in relation to the order in which the accused demanded from him his phone and car keys. In oral evidence, the order was phone first and car keys second, whereas in his previous statements, the complainant appears to have said car keys and then phone. I do not consider this discrepancy to be of significance in assessing the reliability of his evidence having regard to his conduct at the time and, in particular, his contemporaneous complaints.
He was uncertain in his evidence as to whether he had expressly asked for the money in exchange for the ring. This evidence did not cause me to doubt the reliability of his evidence on the key issues. Rather, his uncertainty reflected an honest attempt to recall what had occurred in relation to facts peripheral to the actual robbery. The uncertainty was consistent with what might be expected in an unanticipated situation where he was uneasy about what was occurring and his unease only increased as the interaction progressed.
His oral evidence as to the size of the knife with which he was threatened differed from that which he had given in his police statement. In oral evidence, he said three inches. In his police statement, he had said 12-15cm. I do not consider that this difference is of significance.
There was also a difference between the terms of the threat which he described to police — a threat to him — and that of which he gave oral evidence — a threat to both him and his girlfriend. While I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that a threat was made against the complainant, I am not satisfied to the required standard that a threat was made against his girlfriend in the terms of which he gave oral evidence. I do not, however, consider that this finding casts doubt on the accuracy of the complainant’s evidence more generally.
Clearly, his failure to disclose his prior drug use to police in his complaints to them or in his written statement is a matter which needs to be considered in assessing the reliability of his evidence. So too is his acceptance in oral evidence that he was shown a bag of methylamphetamine by the accused when in his car in the carpark when that matter had not previously been disclosed. However, these matters are only relevant insofar as they generally affect the reliability of his evidence. So far as the failure to disclose his involvement with drugs, I consider that this is not significant and accept his explanation for the reasons why he did not include that in any statement to police. It was clearly an issue of some embarrassment to him, it had the potential to get him into trouble with the police and he did not understand the robbery to have been connected with or motivated by his drug use. As a consequence, he chose not to disclose that he was an occasional methylamphetamine user, that he had previously shared drugs with Rebecca, or that he was offered methylamphetamine in the car.
Third, the contemporaneous complaints that he made are relevant because they both support the reliability of his evidence as well as providing some evidence that the events occurred as he said they did. On the central issues of the presence of a knife and the theft of the phone, the contemporaneous complaint made to his girlfriend and her observations of his behaviour and demeanour at the time provides strong corroboration of his version of events. The circumstances in which the complaint was made indicate that it is highly likely to have been accurate. The relevant aspects of the complaint are as follows:
(a)It was made in the immediate aftermath of the robbery at a time when ON observed him to be shaking, very concerned and shaken up. In those circumstances, it is unlikely that it was either contrived or, on the two relevant points (knife and phone) inaccurate.
(b)He made an immediate complaint that he had been robbed at “knifepoint”.
(c)He was clearly, at that point, without his phone as he immediately borrowed his girlfriend’s phone. This is obviously consistent with the phone having been stolen just before.
(d)He continued to use his girlfriend’s phone for the next three months and made an insurance claim in relation to that phone. Both such actions were consistent with his phone having been stolen and very unlikely if it had not been.
In assessing the significance of the complainant’s evidence, it is important to note that the principal loss to the complainant was the loss of his motor vehicle and it is unlikely that he unnecessarily embellished the story with references to the knife and to the loss of his phone in circumstances where those details were not of significance to him (even though they are of significance for the purposes of the issues in this case).
Similarly, the complaint made to Senior Constable Vickers included a complaint that the robbery of the car and phone occurred at knifepoint. The contemporaneous notes of Senior Constable Vickers said: “had phone & car stolen at knife point. Terrified all day. Told not ring police I would be killed. Knows where house and business is”. Senior Constable Vickers formed the impression that when the complainant made the complaint, he was in fear of his life.
Finally, the complaint made to police operations that evening, which was made on his girlfriend’s phone, explained that he had been too afraid to report it “because it was at knifepoint and I was told if I call the police then they will come to my house and kill me”. It also included the complaint of a knife and that his phone was taken. While this complaint was made significantly later than the complaint to his girlfriend, the delay is explained by a coherent course of conduct following the robbery which was corroborated by his girlfriend and Senior Constable Vickers.
The only matter that, in my view, had the potential to give rise to some doubt about the complainant’s version of events was his decision to go through the building to his vehicle in the carpark. This seemed a somewhat odd decision if the purpose of the interaction was simply to exchange a ring for money. The complainant explained his conduct by reference to the fact that he knew that there were CCTV cameras in the foyer and the carpark and he hoped that this might provide at least some potential to identify the stranger who he had just met. In fact, Exhibit 5 demonstrates that the number of cameras that were operational were less than the number of apparent cameras that might have been visible. He also said that having regard to the time of day, there were likely to be other people in the carpark. However, it would have been a more obvious course just to do whatever transaction was to be done outside the premises on Leichhardt Street. The fact that he took the accused back to his car in the carpark is consistent with the evidence of the accused that an exchange involving drugs was contemplated. However, it must be remembered that on the complainant’s evidence the situation in which he found himself in was completely unexpected. He had been communicating with Rebecca via Facebook until immediately prior to meeting the accused and was expecting Rebecca, not the accused. Therefore, the complainant was required to make a decision on the spot as to what to do and it is quite possible that he went to the vehicle as a defensive measure to reduce the risks associated with the unexpected interaction with the accused. Had the case been one which turned directly upon a finding about what occurred in the carpark, then it may well have been that I had a reasonable doubt about the complainant’s version of events. However, in this case, the events in the carpark are not directly in issue, but instead are significant only insofar as they shed a light upon or may cast a doubt upon the version of events given by the complainant in relation to the phone and the knife. On those two points, I do not have any reasonable doubt as to what occurred. I am positively satisfied that the complainant’s evidence was accurate.
On the other hand, the narrative of the events given in evidence by the accused was implausible. His evidence was that there was a consensual exchange of drugs for the ring but then, because of what the complainant said about Rebecca, he got angry and decided to steal the complainant’s car (but not the drugs that he had just given him).
The manner in which the accused gave evidence was not impressive. However, I have not placed too much weight on his demeanour, recognising that some people giving honest evidence do so in an unimpressive way. Rather, there are a number of features of his evidence which lead me to reject it to the extent to which it does not even cause me to have any reasonable doubt about the evidence of the complainant on the two critical issues (knife and phone).
It was uncontroversial that the accused was, at the time of the events in question, a significant user of methylamphetamine, using about three points per day on average. He had no source of income other than Centrelink payments. He was unemployed.
The version of the accused was that he only stole the car because he became angry at what the complainant was saying about Rebecca. He did not punch him. He did not take back the drugs which he said he had given in exchange for the ring. He denied taking the car with a view to selling it. His only motivation was his anger at what was being said about the person who he said he loved.
In denying any financial motivation in relation to the robbery, the accused gave evidence which was implausible, namely, that notwithstanding he had no employment and a minimal income, he had over the years of his methylamphetamine addiction been given methylamphetamine by other people for free, without any exchange of money or any expectation that he would do anything in return. From a person who admitted that he was prepared to rob a man of his valuable motor vehicle, such an explanation of his lack of financial motivation was unbelievable.
Other aspects of his narrative of events did not present a coherent picture: he said that he had been given a single packet of methylamphetamine by Rebecca containing around 1.4g when he was only required to provide 1g to the complainant. This appears to have been on the basis that there was some expectation that he and some others might use the correct portion of it prior to it being handed over to the complainant. This appears unlikely. It is more likely that if there was some arrangement as to the amount of methylamphetamine that was to be supplied and that this was given by Rebecca to the accused, then it would have been given in a separately identifiable deal bag containing the correct amount.
The evidence given by the accused that he was notified by “people” of the involvement of police at about midday and that this led him to simply abandon the complainant’s motor vehicle in a street in Tuggeranong was unconvincing. The complainant only first made telephone contact with the police after 5pm on 7 April 2017. There was no evidence that the complainant somehow broadcasted on social media that the police were or would become involved (and that suggestion was not put to him in cross-examination). It would have been inconsistent with his obvious fear that he would broadcast such an intention. It must be accepted, however, that he did give evidence that he had a telephone call to Rebecca either by Facebook or otherwise during the course of that day.
It is unusual that the vehicle would simply be abandoned in working order with its keys somewhere in Tuggeranong in circumstances where, on the accused’s version of events, he found out that the police were aware of the robbery of the vehicle when he was in Belconnen.
While in many cases the admission of guilt for a significant offence such as robbery would be a matter which would tell significantly in favour of the credibility of the accused, in the circumstances of the present case it does not. In my view, the Crown case against him in relation to the robbery was very strong in light of the identification evidence that was available. While there were clearly other issues that would arise had there remained a denial of the robbery, I do not accept the submission of counsel for the accused that the Crown case was not a strong one. As a consequence, the admission of guilt to the robbery is not a matter tending in favour of the accused’s version of events.
In summary, I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that at the time of the robbery the accused had a knife with him and that he also stole the complainant’s mobile phone.
So far as matters relevant to sentencing are concerned, I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that, at the time of the robbery, he made a threat to the complainant that if he contacted police he would kill him. Having regard to the differences in the evidence as to whether the threat extended to his girlfriend, I am not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the threat expressly extended to his girlfriend. I am not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the robbery involved any significant degree of planning or premeditation. The evidence of TC was not such as to permit any such finding to be made. Rather, it was a robbery which was perpetrated opportunistically in the circumstances that presented themselves to the accused.
Order
The accused is guilty of the offence. In light of the gravity of the offence, it is appropriate to record a conviction at this stage. The order of the Court is:
1.On the charge of aggravated robbery (CC2017/7182), the accused is found guilty and a conviction is entered.
| I certify that the preceding one hundred and nineteen [119] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of his Honour Justice Mossop. Associate: Date: 7 September 2018 |
2
3
3