R v Hera-Singh - [2017] SADC 43

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v HERA-SINGH
Criminal Trial by Judge Alone
[2017] SADC 43
Reasons for the Verdict of His Honour Judge Boylan
26 April 2017
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - PROPERTY OFFENCES
Accused charged with one count of attempted arson - trial by judge alone - prosecution did not prove final element of attempt beyond reasonable doubt - accused had not moved from preparatory to executory stage.
Held: Not guilty.
The Queen v Collingridge (SASR) 117; R v Litholetovs [2002] EWCA Crim 1154; R v Geddes (1996) The Times, July 16, 1996; O'Connor v Killian (1984) 38 SASR 327; DPP v Stonehouse [1978] AC 5; R v Stone [2011] NICA 1, considered.

R v HERA-SINGH
[2017] SADC 43

Rebecca Louise Hera-Singh is charged with attempted arson. She pleaded “not guilty” and, at her election, I heard the trial without a jury. I now publish my reasons for the verdict I am about to deliver.
The charge is as follows:
Statement of Offence
Attempted Arson. (Sections 85(1) and 270A of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, 1935).
Particulars of Offence
Rebecca Louise Hera-Singh on the 3^rd day of April 2014 at Holden Hill, knowing that she had no lawful authority to do so, attempted to damage by fire a house, the property of the South Australian Housing Trust and the cost of the damage to the said house if the offence had been completed would have exceeded $30,000.
Undisputed facts
By way of introduction, I set out some undisputed facts, all of which I find proved beyond reasonable doubt.
The accused is a good friend and a former lover of Mr Giovanni Leone, also known as “John”.
By April 2014, Mr Leone had been in a sexual relationship with Ms Roxanne Wade for about six months. Ms Wade lived in a unit owned by the South Australian Housing Trust at 3/3 Avocet Street, Holden Hill. As at 3 April 2014, the unit was valued at $126,000 and its contents were insured for between $20,000 and 25,000.
On the night of 2 to 3 April 2014, Ms Wade was alone in her unit. At about 5.00 am, she heard and saw an intruder outside the laundry door. She rang the police, who arrived soon afterwards.
The police officers searched the carport and rear yard. In the yard, they found the accused hiding behind a sheet hanging on a clothes line. She was dressed in dark clothing, which included a black hooded cardigan, and was in possession of gardening gloves, a head torch[1] and a cigarette lighter. Against the rear wall of the unit the police found a two-litre Coke bottle filled with petrol. Under Ms Wade’s car in her carport was a block of wood with three holes drilled in it. The carport smelled of petrol.
[1] The accused initially denied being in possession of the torch but accepted in cross-examination, she was in possession of it.
The accused had driven to Ms Wade’s unit…

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 Hera-Singh

Details

AGLC: R v Hera-Singh [2017] SADC 43
Case: [2017] SADC 43
Decision Date: 26 April 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant, Hera-Singh, was charged with one count of attempted arson. The case was heard by the Supreme Court of a state in Australia. The prosecution alleged that the defendant attempted to set fire to a property but was apprehended before he could complete the act. The trial was conducted by a judge alone, without a jury.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the prosecution had established all elements of the offence of attempted arson beyond reasonable doubt. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the defendant had moved from the preparatory stage to the executory stage of the offence. This required the court to consider whether the defendant's actions went beyond mere preparation and had begun the act of arson.

In delivering the judgment, the court found that the prosecution had not proven beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant had transitioned from the preparatory to the executory stage of the offence. The evidence did not show that the defendant had taken significant steps towards committing the arson, such as lighting a fire or placing flammable materials in a position to ignite. The court concluded that the defendant's actions remained at the preparatory stage, and therefore, the prosecution failed to establish the final element of the offence. Consequently, the court acquitted the defendant.

The court ordered that the defendant be discharged and acquitted of the charge of attempted arson. The court's reasoning was based on the requirement that the prosecution must prove every element of the offence beyond reasonable doubt, and in this instance, the prosecution had not met this burden with respect to the transition from preparatory to executory stages.

Orders