R v Hillier & Reilly - [2015] SADC 77

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v HILLIER & REILLY
[2015] SADC 77
Reasons for the Verdicts of His Honour Judge Millsteed
20 May 2015
CRIMINAL LAW
Accused jointly charged with offences arising out of home invasion - issue one of identity - prosecution case based on circumstantial evidence consisting primarily of DNA evidence - accuseds' DNA located on fragments of latex gloves left at crime scene - accused did not give evidence - whether circumstantial evidence excluded hypotheses consistent with innocence - accused found not guilty.
Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 ss 170(1), 170(2)(b), 137(3), 5(1), 5AA(1)(b); Police Act 1998 s 71(1)(b), referred to.
R v GK (2001) 53 NSWLR 317; R v Pantoja (1998) 88 A Crim R 554; R v Noll [1999] 3 VR 704; R v Rye [2007] VSCA 247; Aytugrul v R (2010) 205 A Crim R 157; Forbes v R (2009) 167 ACTR 1; R v Karger (2002) 83 SASR 135; Chamberlain v The Queen [No.2] (1984) 153 CLR 521; Fitzgerald v The Queen (2014) 88 ALJR 779, considered.

R v HILLIER & REILLY
[2015] SADC 77
Introduction

On the night of 4 March 2013, a group of men invaded the home of Jarrod Brown and Natalie Pickert at Smithfield. The prosecution alleged that the two accused, Callum Reilly and Jarryd Hillier, participated in the home invasion. The case against them was circumstantial in nature and based primarily on DNA evidence. Following a trial by judge alone, I found the two accused not guilty of the charges brought against them. These are my reasons.
The charges
The accused were charged in the same information with six offences alleged to have been jointly committed. The charges comprised: aggravated serious criminal trespass in a place of residence of Jarrod Brown and Natalie Pickert (count 1);[1] aggravated causing serious harm to Jarrod Brown with intent to cause him serious harm (count 2);[2] aggravated robbery of Natalie Pickert (count 3);[3] aggravated threaten life of Natalie Pickert (count 4);[4] aggravated threaten life of Jarrod Brown (count 5);[5] and, impersonating a police officer (count 6).[6]
[1]    Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (CLCA), s 170(1).
[2]    CLCA, s 23(1).
[3]    CLCA, s 137(1).
[4]    CLCA, s 19(1).
[5]    Ibid.
[6]    Police Act 1998, s 74(1)(b).
The offence charged in count 1 was alleged to have been aggravated by three factors: (i) that the victims were lawfully present in the place of residence and that the accused knew of their presence;[7] (ii) that the accused committed the offence in the company of one or more persons;[8] and, (iii) that the accused used offensive weapons namely, a firearm and a knife when the committing the offence.[9] In relation to each of the remaining counts, the charged offence was alleged to have been aggravated by factors (ii) and (iii), described above.
[7] CLCA, s 170(2)(b).
[8] CLCA, s 137(3).
[9] CLCA ss 5(1), 5AA(1)(b).
District Court proceedings
On 3 March 2014 the accused were first…

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 Hillier & Reilly

Details

AGLC: R v Hillier & Reilly [2015] SADC 77
Case: [2015] SADC 77
Decision Date: 20 May 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The two accused, Callum Reilly and Jarryd Hillier, were charged with offences arising out of a home invasion at Smithfield. The case against them was circumstantial in nature and based primarily on DNA evidence. The accused were charged in the same information with six offences alleged to have been jointly committed. The charges comprised aggravated serious criminal trespass in a place of residence of Jarrod Brown and Natalie Pickert; aggravated causing serious harm to Jarrod Brown with intent to cause him serious harm; aggravated robbery of Natalie Pickert; aggravated threaten life of Natalie Pickert; aggravated threaten life of Jarrod Brown; and, impersonating a police officer. The accused were found not guilty of all charges. The court found that the DNA evidence did not exclude reasonable hypotheses consistent with innocence. The court also noted that the victims failed to identify the accused in photo-identification procedures, which may have been due to the traumatic nature of the incident and the time that had elapsed since the offence.

Orders