R v Kamara

Case [2023] SADC 142


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 142

Introduction

  1. 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.

  2. 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

Details
AGLC
R v Kamara [2023] SADC 142
Case
[2023] SADC 142
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Kamara was heard by the Supreme Court of Victoria. The defendant, Kamara, was charged with burglary, housebreaking and assault. The incident in question involved Kamara unlawfully entering a private residence, during which he assaulted the occupant. The court was tasked with determining whether Kamara's actions constituted the offences of burglary, housebreaking and assault, and if so, whether he was guilty of these charges.

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.