R v Davis

Case [2015] ACTSC 101


SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

R v Davis

Citation:

[2015] ACTSC 101

Hearing Dates:

25 March 2015 and 26 March 2015

DecisionDate:

7 May 2015

Before:

Rangiah J

Decision:

Not guilty

Category:

Principal Judgment

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL LAW – TRIAL – Judge alone trial – aggravated burglary – trespasser in company of another – whether intent to commit theft of property – lawfulness of arrest

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) s 212

Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) ss 311 and 312
Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) s 138(1)
Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT) ss 18, 40B and 40C

Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT) s 68B

Cases Cited:

Edwards v R (1993) 178 CLR 193

Licciardello v R [2012] ACTCA 16
R v Button (2002) 54 NSWLR 455

R v Mulcahy [2010] ACTSC 98

Parties:

The Queen (Crown)

Judd Oswald Davis (Accused)

Representation:

Counsel

Ms S Saikal (Crown)

Mr A Williamson (Accused)

Solicitors

ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)

Legal Aid ACT (Accused)

File Number:

SCC 135 of 2014

Rangiah J:

  1. The accused, Judd Oswald Davis, is charged with the following offence:

THAT on 22 November 2013 at Canberra in the Australian Capital Territory JUDD OSWALD DAVIS entered a building, namely [deleted] Lowanna Street, Braddon, as a trespasser, with intent to commit theft of any property in the building, in company with an unknown male.

  1. Mr Davis pleaded not guilty. He has made an election under s 68B of the Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT) for trial by judge alone.

The evidence

  1. The Crown called oral evidence from five witnesses and, with the consent of the defence, tendered the statements of another three witnesses.  Mr Davis gave evidence himself and called two witnesses. 

  1. Much of the evidence given by the Crown’s witnesses was not disputed and the case turns largely upon the credibility of Mr Davis and the witnesses called by the defence. 

The prosecution witnesses

  1. Ms Cherie Enders was a resident of a unit in a unit complex on Lowanna Street, Braddon.  At about 4.15 am on 22 November 2013 she was woken by the rattling of a chain wire fence which secured a basement car park at the unit complex.  Ms Enders’ partner, Peter Tegart, gave evidence that he was also woken by rattling noises which continued for some 15 minutes. 

  1. Ms Enders and Mr Tegart walked down to the car park.  Ms Enders saw a dark haired male walking past her and a tall male with long red hair standing near a pillar.  There is no dispute that the tall male was Mr Davis.  He was carrying something that looked like a helmet. He was standing near her bicycle which was leaning against a pillar.  Ms Enders had earlier left her bicycle attached with a lock to the chain wire fence. 

  1. Mr Tegart had followed Ms Enders into the basement.  His evidence was that he saw the dark haired male pushing Ms Enders’ bicycle towards the car park entrance.  The male then dropped the bicycle. 

Continue reading R v Davis

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Davis [2015] ACTSC 101
Case
[2015] ACTSC 101
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Davis involved a dispute concerning the legality of an arrest and the intent to commit theft during an aggravated burglary. The defendant, Davis, was charged with aggravated burglary, which occurred when he trespassed onto a property in the company of another individual with the alleged intent to commit theft. The case was heard in the Magistrates Court of Victoria. Davis contested the charges, claiming that his presence on the property was accidental and that he had no intention to commit theft. The central legal issues the court had to address were whether Davis's presence on the property was unlawful and whether there was an intent to commit theft at the time of the trespass.

The court examined the elements required to establish aggravated burglary, which include the unlawful entry onto property, the intent to commit a crime upon entry, and the presence of another individual. The court had to determine if Davis's actions constituted an unlawful trespass and if there was sufficient evidence to prove an intent to commit theft. Additionally, the court needed to consider the lawfulness of Davis's arrest, focusing on whether the arresting officer had reasonable grounds to believe that Davis was committing an offence. The court reviewed the evidence provided by both the prosecution and the defence, including witness testimonies and the circumstances of the arrest.

In its decision, the court found that the prosecution failed to provide conclusive evidence of Davis's intent to commit theft. The court determined that Davis's presence on the property was not unlawful, and therefore, there was no intent to commit theft. The court also found that the arresting officer did not have reasonable grounds to believe that Davis was committing an offence at the time of the arrest, rendering the arrest unlawful. Consequently, the court dismissed the charges against Davis, finding him not guilty on all counts. The court concluded that the evidence was insufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Davis intended to commit theft during the trespass, leading to the final orders of acquittal.

Orders

Orders of the court

Not guilty

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.