R v King (No 2) - [2016] ACTSC 121

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v King (No 2)
Citation:	[2016] ACTSC 121
Hearing Dates:	7–8 June 2016
DecisionDate:	9 June 2016
Before:	Murrell CJ
Decision:	Not guilty.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – Judge alone trial – particular offences – burglary and theft – expert evidence – DNA evidence – DNA only evidence implicating the accused – circumstantial case – Murray direction – critical intermediate fact – accused not giving evidence – not guilty on all counts
Legislation Cited:	Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) ss 308, 311 Evidence Act 2011 (ACT) s 20 Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT) s 68B
Cases Cited:	Azzopardi v The Queen (2001) 205 CLR 50 Fitzgerald v The Queen (2014) 311 ALR 158 R v Hillier (2007) 228 CLR 618 R v Murray (1987) 11 NSWLR 12 Shepherd v The Queen (1990) 170 CLR 573 Weissensteiner v The Queen (1993) 178 CLR 217
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Wesley Matthew King (Accused)
Representation:	Counsel Ms A Jamieson-Williams (Crown) Ms S McGee (Accused)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Aboriginal Legal Service (NSW/ACT) (Accused)
File Number(s):	SCC 215 of 2015

MURRELL CJ:

The trial

Pursuant to s 68B of the Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT), the accused elected to be tried by a judge alone and his legal representative certified that he had received advice and made the election freely.

When the accused was arraigned, he pleaded not guilty to three counts of entering or remaining in a building as a trespasser with intent to commit theft of property in the building (burglary, contrary to s 311 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) (Criminal Code)) and one count of dishonestly appropriating property with intent to permanently deprive (theft, contrary to s 308 of the Criminal Code). The prosecution alleged that, between 30 December 2014 and 2 January 2015, the accused forced entry to a cafe and two sheds located at 23 Lonsdale Street, Braddon, which were occupied by a cafe/coffee roasting business known as Lonsdale Street Roasters.

I set out the principles of law that I apply and the findings of fact that I make for the purpose of arriving at verdicts.

Separate charges

I am aware that the four charges upon which the accused was tried were heard together as a matter of convenience. I must consider each charge separately and return a separate verdict of guilty or not guilty on each charge.

Onus and standard of proof

I am aware that the prosecution has the task of proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The accused is presumed to be not guilty of each charge unless the prosecution proves him guilty beyond reasonable doubt. If I have a reasonable doubt about the guilt of the accused on any charge, I must return a verdict of not guilty on that charge.

I am aware that the prosecution does not have to prove the truth of each fact asserted in the prosecution case. What the prosecution must…

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.

Continue reading R v King (No 2)

Details

AGLC: R v King (No 2) [2016] ACTSC 121
Case: [2016] ACTSC 121
Decision Date: 9 June 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v King (No 2) involved the defendant, King, who faced charges of burglary and theft. The trial was conducted in a court with a single judge, without a jury. The primary issue before the court was whether the evidence presented, particularly DNA evidence, was sufficient to prove King's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The case hinged on circumstantial evidence, and the court had to determine if this evidence was sufficient to establish the critical intermediate facts necessary for conviction.

The court examined whether the DNA evidence, which implicated King in the crime, was sufficient on its own to establish the defendant's presence at the scene of the crime. Given that King did not testify and the case against him was entirely circumstantial, the court applied the Murray direction to assess the strength of the evidence. The court had to determine if the DNA evidence, when considered with other circumstantial evidence, was enough to prove King's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The court concluded that the evidence was insufficient to establish the necessary critical intermediate facts, and therefore found King not guilty on all counts.

The reasoning of the court was that the circumstantial evidence, including the DNA evidence, did not conclusively establish King's presence at the scene or his involvement in the crime. The court found that there was an insufficient chain of reasoning to connect King to the burglary and theft beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the court acquitted King on all charges. The orders of the court were that King be found not guilty on all counts.

Orders

Orders of the court

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.