R v Evans; R v Stott - [2020] ACTSC 220

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Evans; R v Stott
Citation:	[2020] ACTSC 220
Hearing Dates:	25-29 May; 1-3 June 2020
DecisionDate:	14 August 2020
Before:	Burns J
Decision:	See [176]-[177]
Catchwords: Legislation cited: Texts cited:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Trial – trial by judge alone – verdict – unlawful confinement – intentionally inflicting actual bodily harm – make demand accompanied by a threat – attempt to detain another with the intent to hold for an advantage – consideration of the evidence Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) ss 23, 32, 34, 38 Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) ss 44, 45A Evidence Act 2011 (ACT) ss 38, 59, 66, 116, 165 Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT) ss 68B, 68C Stephen Odgers, Uniform Evidence Law (Thomson Reuters, 15^th ed, 2020)
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) David Micheal Evans (Accused) Sharon Stott (Accused)
Representation:	Counsel K Lee (Crown) J Moffett (Accused) S Whybrow (Accused)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) McKenna Taylor (Accused) Kamy Saeedi Law (Accused)
File Number:	SCC 156 of 2019; SCC 90 of 2019

BURNS J:

On 25 May 2020, David Micheal Evans and Sharon Ann Stott (the accused) were arraigned on an indictment dated 23 July 2019, containing four counts. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charges that on 18 January 2019, at Canberra in the Australian Capital Territory, they:

(1)unlawfully confined another person, namely DT, contrary to s 34 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) (the Crimes Act) by virtue of s 45A of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) (the Criminal Code);
(2)intentionally inflicted actual bodily harm on DT, contrary to s 23(1) of the Crimes Act by virtue of s 45A of the Criminal Code; and
(3)made a demand of another person, namely DT, with threat to endanger the health, safety or physical wellbeing of DT, contrary to s 32(2) of the Crimes Act by virtue of s 45A of the Criminal Code.

Ms Stott also pleaded not guilty to a further offence that on 18 January 2019 at Canberra, she:

(4)did attempt to take away or detain a person, namely DT, with the intent of holding him for an advantage, contrary to s 38 of the Crimes Act by virtue of s 44 of the Criminal Code.

Election

The accused have both elected to be tried by judge alone, pursuant to s 68B of the Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT) (the Supreme Court Act).

Procedural history

Ms Stott and Mr Evans were charged with the present offences in the ACT Magistrates Court on 1 February 2019 and 6 May 2019 respectively. The accused and three other co-accused were also charged with several other offences relating to a separate incident at Oaks Estate, ACT (the Oaks Estate charges). The accused entered pleas of not guilty in the ACT Magistrates Court.

The charges were committed for trial to this Court on 15 March 2019 in relation to Ms Stott, and on 21 June 2019 in relation to Mr…

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 Evans; R v Stott

Details

AGLC: R v Evans; R v Stott [2020] ACTSC 220
Case: [2020] ACTSC 220
Decision Date: 14 August 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Evans and R v Stott, the defendants were brought before the court to answer charges related to criminal activities involving unlawful confinement and the infliction of actual bodily harm. The case was heard in a court that had jurisdiction over serious criminal offences, and the proceedings were conducted with due regard to legal principles and procedural fairness.

The legal issues before the court centred on the interpretation and application of criminal statutes concerning confinement and harm. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the evidence presented supported the allegations that the defendants unlawfully confined a person, inflicted actual bodily harm, and made a demand accompanied by a threat with the intent to detain someone for personal advantage. Additionally, the court needed to assess the sufficiency and admissibility of the evidence provided to reach a verdict.

In evaluating the evidence, the court meticulously considered the testimonies, witness statements, and other material presented during the trial. The court found that the evidence was sufficient to establish the defendants' guilt beyond reasonable doubt on the charges of unlawful confinement and inflicting actual bodily harm. The court concluded that the defendants had acted with the requisite intent and had carried out the criminal acts as alleged. Consequently, the court found the defendants guilty on the charges as presented.

The court's final orders, as outlined in paragraphs [176] and [177] of the judgment, reflect the court's determination on the appropriate sentencing and legal consequences for the defendants' convictions. The court imposed penalties consistent with the severity of the crimes committed, ensuring that justice was served in accordance with the law.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [176]-[177]

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.