R v Jones

[2020] ACTSC 329

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

R v Jones

Citation:

[2020] ACTSC 329

Hearing Date:

9 December 2020

DecisionDate:

9 December 2020

Before:

Elkaim J

Decision:

[27]

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Sentence – joint commission aggravated robbery – guilty verdict – suspended sentence

Cases Cited:

R v Murray [2016] ACTSC 173

Apps v The Queen [2020] ACTCA 53

Parties:

The Queen (Crown)

Melanie Jones (Offender)

Representation:

Counsel

R Christensen (Crown)

M Sahu Khan (Offender)

Solicitors

ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)

Aboriginal Legal Service ACT/NSW (Offender)

File Numbers:

SCC 82 of 2020; SCC 83 of 2020

ELKAIM J:

1. The offender came to trial before a jury on 24 November 2020. She faced a single charge of aggravated robbery. A co-accused, Mr Daniel Craft, faced the same charge.

1. The maximum penalty for an aggravated robbery is 25 years imprisonment and/or a fine of $400,000.

1. On 30 November 2020 the jury found the offender guilty. Mr Craft was found not guilty.

1. In short summary the Crown alleged that in the early hours of 12 December 2019 a Mr Pasha was lured to a baseball park in Narrabundah where two men set upon him, together with the offender, stole his Mercedes-Benz motorcar. Mr Pasha suffered significant injuries including two long gashes to the head and a broken finger.

1. The offender was charged on a joint commission basis alleging that she had agreed with the two men that Mr Pasha would be robbed. Mr Craft was alleged to be one of the two men.

1. Following her arrest, the offender participated in a recorded record of interview with the police. In this interview she accepted that she had been present at the baseball park but said that she had been alone and that she had caused the injuries suffered by Mr Pasha in her endeavours to ward off his inappropriate advances. On this version neither of the two men was present in the park or took any part in causing the injuries suffered by Mr Pasha.

1. Mr Craft also gave an interview to the police in which he denied being present at the park.

1. It is evident from the verdicts given by the jury that Ms Jones’s version was not accepted and that the Crown had proved its case against her. It is to be recalled that on her version she was present at the ballpark and she did not dispute the injuries suffered by Mr Pasha.

1. Although, at first sight, there might seem to be an inconsistency in the jury verdicts, in that if the jury rejected Ms Jones’ version it followed that Mr Pasha had been attacked by the two men, logically including Mr Craft. The difficulty for the Crown however, in respect of Mr Craft, was that although he had been identified in the presence of Mr Pasha at a different location before the assault, the evidence placing him in the ballpark was weak.

1. It was therefore entirely open to the jury to…