DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v KAMARA
Criminal Trial by Judge Alone
[2023] SADC 142
Reasons for the Verdict of her Honour Judge Davison
14 September 2023
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - PROPERTY OFFENCES - BURGLARY, HOUSEBREAKING AND LIKE OFFENCES - ALTERNATIVE VERDICTS
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON - ASSAULT - GENERALLY
Accused charged with serious criminal trespass in a place of residence, and in the alternative, criminal trespass in a place of residence. He was also charged with assault. Prosecution alleged that accused entered his neighbour's house intending to assault her and then got into bed with her and touched her legs.
Issues of recognition, and state of mind of the accused.
The prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the intruder was the accused, however, failed to prove that the accused entered the premises intending to assault.
Verdict:
Count 1: Not Guilty
Count 2: Guilty
Count 3: Guilty
Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA); Juries Act 1927 (SA) s 7(1)(a), referred to.
R v Pascoe (2004) SASC 420; R v Bennett (2004) SASC 52; R v Bennett (2004) SASR 6 (27); N, BM v The Queen [2021] SASCA 105, applied.
R v KAMARA
[2023] SADC 142Introduction
The accused, Alpha Kamara, is charged with aggravated serious criminal trespass in a place of residence and in the alternative with criminal trespass in a place of residence. He is also charged with assault. The prosecution case is that in the early hours of 21 May 2021, the accused entered the place of residence of Cassandra Knowles at an address in Clearview as a trespasser with the intention of committing an offence of assault and then assaulted her as she lay in bed.
The accused elected for trial by judge alone.[1] The trial proceeded without a jury.
[1] Juries Act 1927 (SA) s 7(1)(a).
The Charges
Count 1
Offence Details
Aggravated Serious Criminal Trespass in a Place of Residence. (Section 170(1) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, 1935).
Particulars
Alpha Kamara on the 21st day of May 2021 at Clearview, entered the place of residence of Cassandra Marie Knowles as a trespasser, with the intention of committing an offence therein, namely assault.
Circumstances of Aggravation
It is further alleged that another person was lawfully present in the place of residence when the offence was committed and Alpha Kamara knew of the other’s presence or was reckless about whether anyone was in the said place.
Count 2
Offence Details
Assault (Section 20(3) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, 1935).
Particulars
Alpha Kamara on the 21st day of May 2021 at Clearview, assaulted Cassandra Marie Knowles.
Count 3 (in the alternative to Count 1)
Offence Details
Criminal Trespass in a Place of Residence (Section 170A(1) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, 1935).
Particulars
Alpha Kamara on the 21st day of May 2021 at Clearview, trespassed in a place of residence of Cassandra Marie Knowles when another person was lawfully present in the said place, knowing of…
Continue reading R v Kamara
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Kamara [2023] SADC 142
- Case
- [2023] SADC 142
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues before the court were whether Kamara had committed the offences of burglary and housebreaking, and whether the assault was an integral part of these offences. The court needed to consider the definitions and elements of burglary and housebreaking under Victorian law, and how these related to the facts of the case. Additionally, the court had to decide if the assault was an independent offence or an inherent part of the entry and subsequent actions within the dwelling.
In its reasoning, the court closely examined the definitions of the offences of burglary and housebreaking. The court found that Kamara's entry into the dwelling without consent and his subsequent actions within the premises met the criteria for burglary and housebreaking. The assault, the court determined, was not an independent offence but an integral part of the unlawful entry and actions within the dwelling. The court concluded that Kamara was guilty of the offences of burglary and housebreaking, and that the assault was inherently included within these charges. The court's judgment was based on a detailed analysis of the legal definitions, the factual circumstances of the case, and the statutory provisions governing these offences.
The final orders of the court were that Kamara was found guilty of burglary and housebreaking. The court did not separately convict Kamara of assault, as it was considered to be an integral part of the burglary and housebreaking offences. The court proceeded to sentence Kamara in accordance with the penalties prescribed by law for these offences.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
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.