R v Jared James Sullivan
[2012] ACTSC 118
•16 July 2012
R v JARED JAMES SULLIVAN
[2012] ACTSC 118 (16 July 2012)
Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), s 403
Residential Tenancy Act 1997 (ACT)
EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT
No. SCC 333 of 2011
Judge: Burns J
Supreme Court of the ACT
Date: 16 July 2012
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE )
) No. SCC 333 of 2011
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY )
R
v
JARED JAMES SULLIVAN
ORDER
Judge: Burns J
Date: 16 July 2012
Place: Canberra
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
In relation to the offence that on 13 September 2010 at Oaks Estate in the Australian Capital Territory the accused intentionally caused damage to the silver Ford Mondeo belonging to Mathew Colin Barnes by deliberately reversing his car into that Ford Mondeo, the offence is proved.
A conviction is recorded and the offender is sentenced to a good behaviour order for 18 months.
A reparation order is made in the amount of $2,000.00.
The accused, Jared James Sullivan, is charged that on 13 September 2010 at Canberra in the Australian Capital Territory he intentionally caused damage to property, being a silver Ford Mondeo, belonging to Matthew Colin Barnes. The charge is one contrary to s 403 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT).
It is for the Crown to prove the guilt of the accused and his guilt must be proved to the standard of beyond reasonable doubt. If the Crown does not satisfy that onus which is cast upon it, then the accused is entitled to be acquitted of the charge.
The evidence before me is that on 13 September 2010 the accused was a resident of 14 George Street Oaks Estate in the Australian Capital Territory. Mr Jordon Lincoln, a mechanic, was also a resident of those units.
Mr Lincoln, at that time, had possession of a silver Ford Mondeo with registration number SOF-362. That registration was a New South Wales registration, whereas the evidence is that Mr Barnes lived in the Australian Capital Territory. The explanation for this may well rest in the fact deposed to by Mr Barnes, that at that time he had just bought the motor vehicle and was having it repaired for the purposes of having it registered. That would be consistent with the vehicle having a New South Wales registration plate but Mr Barnes being a resident of the Australian Capital Territory. In any event, it appears to me that that is not particularly relevant.
The evidence of Mr Lincoln, which has not been the subject of dispute in relation to this matter, is that the accused drove his motor vehicle out of his garage at 14 George Street in Oaks Estate, up the driveway, which leads, as I understand it, from the garage to the street. He drove for a distance of approximately seven metres. He then stopped and reversed his motor vehicle back down the driveway. He stopped about three metres in front of the Ford Mondeo. The accused then revved the engine on his car and then reversed it, at some speed, into the Ford Mondeo, causing damage to that vehicle and also causing it to be pushed up against a railing, which caused even further damage to the vehicle.
The accused then got out of the vehicle and walked towards Mr Lincoln. He came within 30 centimetres of Mr Lincoln’s face and said words to the effect of, “You’ve got too many cars here, do you want a go, cunt? Come on. Come on.” Mr Lincoln declined the apparent invitation to fight and informed the accused that he was going to ring the Police and also Housing and Community Services ACT. The accused then returned to his vehicle and drove the vehicle off at that time, revving the vehicle and driving erratically.
According to Mr Lincoln, about 15 or 20 minutes later the accused returned in his car and parked in front of the Ford Mondeo. The accused got out of the vehicle and went into his flat and came back out some time later, got into his car and reversed his car back up the driveway, spinning the wheels and causing smoke at that time. That time, Police were called.
The evidence of Mr Lincoln was largely corroborated by that of Mr Brian Fairbanks. The Crown also called Mr Matthew Barnes to give evidence. He was the owner of the Ford Mondeo and he had only recently purchased it for $2,000.00. He had left the vehicle with Mr Lincoln in order to have it prepared for registration. Mr Barnes said that after the damage which was occasioned to it as a consequence of the collision between the accused’s motor vehicle and his motor vehicle, his vehicle was written off.
In the course of a taped record of interview with the accused, the Police asked the accused whether he had deliberately driven his motor vehicle into Mr Barnes’ vehicle. The accused said that he had. He said that it may simply have been something like a “brain snap” that caused him to act in that way at that time. It is quite clear from the answers that the accused gave to questions put to him by Police that he was frustrated at that time with what he saw as vehicles being left within the precincts of 14 George Street Oaks Estate by people who were not residents of those premises.
The accused gave evidence before me today in which he did not deny that he had driven his motor vehicle in such a way as to collide with the Ford Mondeo but, effectively, said that under the Residential Tenancy Act 1997 (ACT) persons who are on the premises are not entitled to inhibit access to the premises and, secondly, in his view, the property was deemed to be uncollected goods.
The evidence of Constable Aitchison was that the Ford Mondeo was approximately 30 to 40 metres away from the garage where the accused kept his motor vehicle. Constable Aitchison said that he could not see any vehicles inhibiting access to anything during the time that he was there.
Even if, I may say, the vehicles had been inhibiting access and, in particular, the Ford Mondeo had been inhibiting access on the part of the accused, either to his garage or to some other part of the unit complex, that would not entitle him to simply drive his motor vehicle into the Ford Mondeo, causing it damage. However, I am satisfied, as a question of fact, that the Ford Mondeo was not, in fact, inhibiting access, either to the accused’s garage or to any other part of the unit complex at that time.
I had some difficulty in understanding the submission, based upon the evidence of the accused, that the property in question, the Ford Mondeo, was deemed to be uncollected goods. It is quite clear that the Ford Mondeo was, in fact, the property of Mr Barnes. Mr Barnes gave evidence to that effect, and it was not challenged. Also, Mr Lincoln gave evidence to the effect that the Ford Mondeo was the property of Mr Barnes.
I do not accept that the accused thought that the Ford Mondeo was abandoned. I do not accept that because the evidence of Mr Lincoln, which again was unchallenged by the accused, was that after the accused had collided with the Ford Mondeo, the accused got out of his vehicle and immediately approached Mr Lincoln and at that time said to him, “You've got too many cars here”.
Clearly the accused associated either ownership or possession of that vehicle with Mr Lincoln. In any event it is quite clear, as I've said, that the Ford Mondeo was not uncollected goods, whatever that may mean, but was in fact a car which had been placed with Mr Lincoln for the purposes of Mr Lincoln undertaking mechanical repairs.
For the reasons that I have already given, I do not accept that the accused believed that the car was abandoned. The accused may well have believed that the car should not have been there. However, that is not an excuse for driving his motor vehicle intentionally into the Ford Mondeo.
On the evidence before me, I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that on 13 September 2010 at Oaks Estate in the Australian Capital Territory the accused intentionally caused damage to the silver Ford Mondeo belonging to Mathew Colin Barnes by deliberately reversing his car into that Ford Mondeo. As such, I find the offence proved.
Sentence
I note, Mr Sullivan, that you are 32 years of age and that you have no previous convictions recorded against you. The fact that you have no prior convictions means that you are entitled to a degree of leniency with respect to this matter.
I also take into account the clear frustration that you felt as a consequence of people who you believed should not have been parking their vehicles on your premises, in fact parking their vehicles there.
However, as I have already said, that really does not in any way justify your actions on this occasion. I will record a conviction and you will be obliged to sign an undertaking to be of good behaviour for a period of 18 months with a condition that you are to accept the supervision of ACT Corrective Services for a period of 12 months or such lesser period as deemed appropriate by your supervising officer and you are to obey all reasonable directions of ACT Corrective Services.
I will also make a reparation order ordering you to pay the sum of $2,000.00 in reparation to Mr Mathew Colin Barnes within a period of 18 months.
I certify that the preceding twenty one (21) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of his Honour, Justice Burns.
Associate:
Date: 24 July 2012
Counsel for the Crown: Mr D Sahu-Khan
Solicitor for the Crown: ACT Director of Public Prosecutions
Solicitor for the accused: The accused appeared in person
Date of hearing: 16 July 2012
Date of judgment: 16 July 2012
0
0
2