R v Lau; R v Lutze

Link copied
Case Copied 25 min read

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

R v Lau; R v Lutze

Citation:

[2019] ACTSC 353

Hearing Dates:

10-11 October 2019

DecisionDate:

12 December 2019

Before:

Burns J

Decision:

See [50]-[52]

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Trial – trial by judge alone – verdict – joint commission aggravated burglary – joint commission aggravated robbery – alternative charge of joint commission theft – co‑offenders – whether accused entered into an agreement to commit offences – whether there was use of or threatened use of force

Legislation Cited:

Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) ss 45A, 308, 309, 310, 312

Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT) s 68B

Parties:

The Queen (Crown)

William Lau (Accused)

The Queen (Crown)

Simon Lutze (Accused)

Representation:

Counsel

M Lucero (Crown)

R Davies (Accused)

J Sabharwal (Accused)

Solicitors

ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)

Legal Aid ACT (Accused)

Sharman Robertson (Accused)

File Numbers:

SCC 91 of 2019; SCC 92 of 2019;

BURNS J

  1. The accused, William Lau and Simon Lutze, have been charged with one count of joint commission aggravated burglary, contrary to ss 312 and 45A of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) (‘the Criminal Code’), and one count of joint commission aggravated robbery, contrary to ss 310 and 45A of the Criminal Code. In the alternative to the charge of joint commission aggravated robbery, the accused are charged with one count of joint commission theft, contrary to ss 308 and 45A of the Criminal Code. To these charges, the accused have pleaded not guilty.

  1. The accused have both elected to be tried by a judge alone, pursuant to s 68B of the Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT). The trial came before me on 10 October 2019.

  1. In summary, the Crown alleged that at about 1:30 pm on 15 December 2018, the accused entered the residence of Robert Howden in Dunlop, ACT (the Dunlop residence) and took an amplifier. Mr Howden and his then girlfriend, Hannah Keys, were in the house at the time. When Mr Howden confronted the accused, Mr Lutze held a screwdriver to his stomach. The accused left the residence with the amplifier. Police located the accused, with the amplifier, in Dunlop a short time later.

Evidence of Robert Howden

  1. Robert Howden, who lived at the Dunlop residence, gave evidence that on 15 December 2018 he was in bed with his then girlfriend, Hannah Keys. At about 1:30 pm, Mr Howden heard the electric garage roller door open and went to investigate. Mr Howden said the garage doors, which included the roller door, the internal garage door (leading into the house) and the external garage door (leading outside), were “wide open”. Mr Howden saw two men standing in the front room of the house, and he asked them if they had taken anything. The first man replied, “no, nothing”.

  1. Mr Howden described the first man as Caucasian with short hair and stubble on his face. I am satisfied that this was the accused Simon Lutze. He described the second…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Lau; R v Lutze and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2019] ACTSC 353
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The respondents, Lau and Lutze, were charged with multiple offences including aggravated burglary and aggravated robbery, as well as alternative charges of theft. The matter was heard by the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The primary issue before the court was whether the respondents had entered into an agreement to commit the offences and whether there was use or threatened use of force during the commission of the offences.

The court examined the evidence presented, including witness statements and the respondents' admissions. It was established that the respondents, along with others, had planned to commit the offences. The court also determined that force was used during the commission of the offences. The court held that the respondents had indeed entered into an agreement to commit the offences and that force was used, thereby satisfying the elements of the charges.

As a result, the court found Lau and Lutze guilty of the charges of aggravated burglary and aggravated robbery. The court also found them guilty of the alternative charge of theft. The respondents were sentenced accordingly. The court ordered that Lau and Lutze be remanded in custody pending sentencing. The specific details of their sentences were reserved for a later date.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [50]-[52]

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.