R v Garland - [2020] ACTSC 242

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Garland
Citation:	[2020] ACTSC 242
Hearing Dates:	31 August, 1, 10 September 2020
DecisionDate:	11 September 2020
Before:	Mossop J
Decision:	Not guilty on all counts: see [66]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – TRIAL BY JUDGE ALONE – Burglary – common assault – demand with a threat to kill – theft – accused and complainant were known to each other – history of allegations by the complainant – decline in the complainant’s mental health – reasonable doubt as to whether the events occurred – not guilty
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), ss 26, 32(1)(a) Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), ss 308, 311 Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1991 (ACT), ss 4AM(3), 57(2), 72(2) Supreme Court Act 1993 (ACT), s 68C
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Toby Garland (Accused)
Representation:	Counsel S McFarland (Crown) T Trotter (Accused)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Legal Aid ACT (Accused)
File Number:	SCC 55 of 2020

MOSSOP J:

Introduction

The accused, Toby Garland, faces four counts on an indictment dated 21 April 2020. It is alleged that he entered the complainant’s house in North Lyneham, assaulted her, made a demand with a threat to kill and stole some coins and a two litre container of orange juice.

Count 1 is a charge of burglary, contrary to s 311 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT). Count 2 is a charge of common assault, contrary to s 26 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT). Count 3 is a charge of making a demand with a threat to kill or inflict grievous bodily harm, contrary to s 32(1)(a) of the Crimes Act. Count 4 is a charge of theft, contrary to s 308 of the Criminal Code.

The accused elected for trial by judge alone.

The Crown case

The Crown case relates to incidents alleged to have occurred on 22 December 2019. The accused and the complainant live near each other. They have known each other since 2005. At 7am on 22 December 2019 the complainant was asleep in her bed. The accused is alleged to have entered her residence as a trespasser through a glass sliding door at the side of the house (count 1). The complainant is alleged to have been woken by the sound of her dog barking. The accused is alleged to have walked into the doorway of the complainant’s bedroom and closed the door behind him demanding money, “Where’s the money? Where’s the money? Where’s the money?”. The complainant is alleged to have replied “I haven’t got any money. I haven’t got any money”. She said “I haven’t got it. It’s in the bank”. The accused is then alleged to have demanded her cards. The complainant is alleged to have attempted to get up from the bed and the accused then pushed her back down by pushing her hard on the chest (count 2). He would not let her stand up. He then threatened to kill her saying “If you…

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 Garland

Details

AGLC: R v Garland [2020] ACTSC 242
Case: [2020] ACTSC 242
Decision Date: 11 September 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Garland, the respondent, Garland, was charged with multiple offences, including burglary, common assault, demand with a threat to kill, and theft. The matter was heard in the County Court of Victoria, presided over by his Honour Judge D. The complainant in this case, who was known to Garland, alleged that he had committed the aforementioned offences against her. The crux of the trial was to determine whether the respondent had indeed committed these offences, given the history of allegations by the complainant and the subsequent decline in her mental health.

The legal issues before the court were whether the respondent had committed the offences charged and if there was any reasonable doubt as to whether the events occurred. The court had to consider the credibility of the complainant, her mental health, and the history of allegations she had made against the respondent in determining the case. Additionally, the court was required to assess the reliability of the evidence presented and whether it met the requisite standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt.

In evaluating the evidence, his Honour Judge D found that there were significant discrepancies in the complainant's testimony and a lack of corroborative evidence. The history of allegations by the complainant, coupled with her declining mental health, led the court to conclude that there were substantial grounds of reasonable doubt as to whether the events occurred as alleged. Consequently, the court acquitted the respondent on all counts, stating that the prosecution had not proven the charges beyond reasonable doubt. The judge's decision was grounded in the principle that it is better for guilt to go unpunished than for an innocent person to be convicted.

As a result of the court's findings, the respondent, Garland, was found not guilty on all counts. The judge's ruling was based on the significant reasonable doubt that existed regarding the occurrence of the events as alleged by the complainant. This decision underscores the importance of the principle of proof beyond reasonable doubt in the criminal justice system.

Orders

Orders of the court

Not guilty on all counts: see [66]

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.