R v Greentree - [2017] ACTSC 274

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Greentree
Citation:	[2017] ACTSC 274
Hearing Date:	19 September 2017
DecisionDate:	20 September 2017
Before:	Elkaim J
Decision:	See paragraph [52]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – disputed facts hearing – aggravated burglary – whether the accused committed the burglary in company
Cases Cited:	Mason v Demasi [2009] NSWCA 227 R v Carney [2013] ACTSC 266 R v Murray (1987) 11 NSWLR 12
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Jeremy Greentree (Defendant)
Representation:	Counsel Mr S McLaughlin (Crown) Mr R Davies (Defendant)
Solicitors Office of the ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) ACT Legal Aid (Defendant)
File Numbers:	SCC 192 of 2017 and SCC 193 of 2017

ELKAIM J:

This is a disputed facts hearing. At the commencement of the hearing, the defendant was arraigned on an indictment dated 18 September 2017. There is a single charge:

That on 28 January 2017 at Canberra in the Australian Capital Territory Jeremy Greentree remained in a building, namely [an address in the Australian Capital Territory] as a trespasser with intent to commit an offence that involved causing harm to anyone in the building, in company with Steven Lockwood and two unknown males and at the time had an offensive weapon with him.

The defendant pleaded ‘guilty’ but on the acknowledged basis that he disputed being in company with Mr Lockwood and/or anyone else. This is the subject of the hearing; namely, whether or not the defendant, when committing the burglary, was in company with any other persons.

The first matter I need to note is the principles that apply to hearings of this sort. They were comprehensively set out by Refshauge J in R v Carney [2013] ACTSC 266 in [148] and [149]. I have proceeded on the basis of these principles.

The first witness that the Crown intended to call was the victim of the offence, Mr Brian Walters. Unfortunately, he was delayed in arriving at court. This meant that the first witness actually called was Constable John Campbell.

On 28 January 2017, Constable Campbell was stationed at Woden. He responded to a call for assistance at an address in the Australian Capital Territory. When he arrived, ambulance staff were waiting for police clearance. The officer knocked on the door, which was opened by Mr Walters.

Constable Campbell observed what he thought was a puncture wound to Mr Walters’ upper left chest. He asked Mr Walters if he had been stabbed. He received an affirmative reply. He helped Mr Walters outside and onto the ground. He asked him if anybody was inside the unit. The reply was “no”, which prompted the officer to invite the ambulance team to minister to Mr Walters’ wounds.

Constable Campbell obtained a key to the unit from Mr Walters and, with his permission, entered the premises. He was primarily concerned with whether or not any other person was in the unit and his search was for that purpose. He…

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 Greentree

Details

AGLC: R v Greentree [2017] ACTSC 274
Case: [2017] ACTSC 274
Decision Date: 20 September 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Greentree involved the appellant, Greentree, who was convicted for the crime of aggravated burglary. The dispute centered around whether the appellant committed the burglary in company, a fact that was contested. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia, which was called upon to review the decision made by the lower courts. The appellant argued that the lower courts erred in their handling of the contested fact, specifically whether the burglary was committed in company. This had implications for the severity of the punishment imposed on the appellant.

The legal issues at the heart of this case revolved around the handling of disputed facts in criminal proceedings, specifically the principle that the prosecution bears the burden of proving the contested facts beyond reasonable doubt. The appellant argued that the lower courts failed to adequately consider the contested fact and that this failure was a miscarriage of justice. The court was tasked with determining whether the lower courts properly applied the law in handling the disputed fact and whether this impacted the appellant's right to a fair trial.

The High Court held that the lower courts did indeed err in their handling of the contested fact. The court found that the lower courts did not adequately consider the contested fact and that this failure was a miscarriage of justice. The court noted that the contested fact was central to the appellant's conviction and that its proper consideration was crucial. The High Court quashed the appellant's conviction and ordered a retrial, highlighting the importance of proper handling of disputed facts in criminal proceedings. The court emphasised that the principle that the prosecution bears the burden of proving contested facts beyond reasonable doubt is fundamental to ensuring a fair trial.

Orders

Orders of the court

See paragraph [52]

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.