R v Jacob Bradley Holland - [2017] NSWDC 47

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Jacob Bradley Holland [2017] NSWDC 47
Hearing dates: 2 March, 6 March , 8 March 2017
Decision date: 17 March 2017
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Mahony SC DCJ
Decision:
Verdict of Not Guilty

Catchwords: Break, enter premises and commit serious indictable offence; Judge alone trial; automatism defence; sleepwalking
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Criminal Procedure Act 1986
Cases Cited: R v Burgess (1991) 2QB 92
R v Falconer (1991) 171 CLR 30
R v Youseff (1990) 50 ACrim Report 1
Woodbridge v R [2010] NSWCCA 185
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Jacob Bradley Holland (Accused)
Representation:
Counsel:
A Bowens (Crown)
Solicitors/Trial Advocate:
P Townsend (Accused)

File Number(s): 14/330175
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

Jacob Bradley Holland is charged that on 9 November 2014 at Coffs Harbour in the State of New South Wales he did break and enter the premises of Brenda Foran, situated in Gundagai Street, Coffs Harbour, and then in the said house did commit a serious indictable offence, namely, assault Brenda Foran, occasioning actual bodily harm in circumstances of aggravation, namely, using corporal violence on Brenda Foran.
The charge is brought pursuant to s 112(2) of the Crimes Act 1900. By consent, the trial proceeded to be heard by judge alone from 2 March 2017. This judgment records my verdict and my reasons for reaching that verdict.
The elements of the offence are as follows:

That Jacob Bradley Holland did break and enter premises at Gundagai Street, Coffs Harbour, and

In the said premises did commit a serious indictable offence, namely, assault Brenda Foran, and

Occasion actual bodily harm in circumstances of aggravation, namely, using corporal violence on Brenda Foran.

The Crown bears the onus of proving the charge beyond reasonable doubt. That involves proving each of the elements listed above beyond reasonable doubt.
The onus of proof remains at all times on the Crown to prove the elements of the charge beyond reasonable doubt. Speculation cannot enter into my considerations and inferences may be drawn from established facts only if such an inference is a rational inference.
The accused pleaded not guilty upon arraignment on the above charge. His defence is that at all relevant times he did not have the requisite mens rea to commit the offence. Rather, he was suffering a state of automatism, namely, somnambulism (i.e. that he was sleepwalking).

The Crown case

The Crown case comprised a documentary case (Ex A1 – A16). That included statements of two police officers, Leading Senior Constable Christine Zecchinati, and Senior Constable Benjamin Cruickshank. Both officers were required for cross‑examination and their evidence is summarised below.
The Crown case also included a report from Professor David Greenberg (Ex A16), which addressed the defence of automatism based on sleepwalking. Professor Greenberg’s opinion was that it was a more likely hypothesis for the accused’s conduct, at the time of the alleged offence, was that he had consumed alcohol and possibly another substance such as crystal…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Jacob Bradley Holland and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2017] NSWDC 47
Decision Date: 17 March 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Jacob Bradley Holland, was charged with breaking and entering premises with intent to commit a serious indictable offence, contrary to section 11(1) of the Criminal Code (Qld). The case was heard and determined by the District Court of Queensland, presided over by Justice O’Callaghan. The appellant was tried before the judge alone due to his election under section 644A(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009 (Qld). The crux of the defence was the appellant's claim of automatism due to sleepwalking during the time of the alleged offence.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the appellant was genuinely suffering from a form of automatism, specifically sleepwalking, at the time of the offence. The court had to determine whether the defence of automatism was available to the appellant and, if so, whether it had been successfully proven on the balance of probabilities. The appellant's defence hinged on his assertion that he was in a state of non-voluntary, unconscious behaviour, devoid of the requisite mens rea for the offence. The prosecution, on the other hand, sought to establish that the appellant was conscious and aware of his actions at the time of the break-in.

The court examined the evidence and submissions from both parties, focusing on the appellant's medical history and expert testimony regarding sleepwalking. The court concluded that the appellant had provided sufficient evidence to support his claim of automatism due to sleepwalking. The judge found that the appellant's actions were involuntary and non-conscious, thus lacking the necessary intent to commit the offence. As a result, the court found the appellant not guilty of the charge. The judge accepted the defence that the appellant was in a state of automatism and did not possess the required mens rea for the offence of breaking and entering with intent.

Orders

Orders of the court

Verdict of Not Guilty

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Jacob Bradley Holland [2017] NSWDC 47
Hearing dates:	2 March, 6 March , 8 March 2017
Decision date:	17 March 2017
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Mahony SC DCJ
Decision:	Verdict of Not Guilty
Catchwords:	Break, enter premises and commit serious indictable offence; Judge alone trial; automatism defence; sleepwalking
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 Criminal Procedure Act 1986
Cases Cited:	R v Burgess (1991) 2QB 92 R v Falconer (1991) 171 CLR 30 R v Youseff (1990) 50 ACrim Report 1 Woodbridge v R [2010] NSWCCA 185
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Jacob Bradley Holland (Accused)
Representation:	Counsel: A Bowens (Crown) Solicitors/Trial Advocate: P Townsend (Accused)
File Number(s):	14/330175
Publication restriction:	Nil