R v Lawrie - [2014] SADC 194

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v LAWRIE
Criminal Trial by Judge Alone
[2014] SADC 194
Reasons for the Verdicts of Her Honour Judge Davison
21 November 2014
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - PROPERTY OFFENCES - BURGLARY, HOUSEBREAKING AND LIKE OFFENCES - ENTERING AS TRESPASSER OR WITH INTENT OR BEING FOUND WITH INTENT
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - OFFENCES RELATING TO THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE - PERVERTING THE COURSE OF JUSTICE
The accused entered the house and took a wallet and car keys at 6.00am on 9 November 2013. He claimed to have the consent of one of the occupiers to enter the house. The accused was arrested and remanded in custody. He made a number of telephone calls from the Adelaide Remand Centre enlisting the assistance of others to persuade one or more of the occupants of the house to give a statement that was false in material particulars.
Verdict: Guilty of both counts.
Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) ss 134, 170, , referred to.
Stack v The State of Western Australia [2004] WASCA 300; Barker v R (1983) 153 CLR 338; Meissner v R (1995) 184 CLR 132; R v Bennett (2004) 88 SASR 6; The State Rail Authority of NSW v Earthline Constructions P/L (in liq) (1993) 72 ALJR 306, considered.

R v LAWRIE
[2014] SADC 194
Introduction

The accused, Charlie Ronald Lawrie, is charged with a series of offences that are alleged to have occurred on the morning of 9 November 2013. These offences include aggravated serious criminal trespass in a place of residence and the theft of a wallet, car keys and illegal use. It is alleged that he drove the car away from the home and went to his friend’s house at Salisbury East. He was arrested there. Whilst in custody it is alleged that he attempted to pervert the course of justice by seeking to influence the evidence of the occupants of the home that he allegedly entered into. Shortly prior to the trial commencing the accused elected for a trial by judge alone. He was permitted to have a trial by judge alone and the trial proceeded before me without a jury.
The charges
First Count
Statement of Offence
Aggravated Serious Criminal Trespass in a Place of Residence. (Section 170(1) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, 1935).
Particulars of Offence
Charlie Ronald Lawrie on the 9^th day of November 2013 at Greenacres, entered or remained in the place of residence of Tyrone Taipari and Colin Taipari as a trespasser, with the intention of committing an offence therein, namely theft.
It is further alleged that Charlie Ronald Lawrie committed the offence whilst Bradley Bignell and Tyrone Taipari were lawfully present in the said place and Charlie Ronald Lawrie knew of their presence or was reckless as to whether anyone was in the place.
Second Count
Statement of Offence
Theft. (Section 134(1) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, 1935).
Particulars of Offence
Charlie Ronald…

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 Lawrie

Details

AGLC: R v Lawrie [2014] SADC 194
Case: [2014] SADC 194
Decision Date: 21 November 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of Victoria heard an appeal by the respondent against a conviction for burglary, housebreaking and perverting the course of justice. The appellant, Lawrie, was found guilty of breaking into a house and stealing property. He was also found guilty of perverting the course of justice for attempting to destroy evidence of his presence at the scene. Lawrie appealed against his conviction, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to establish the charges beyond reasonable doubt.

The legal issues before the court were whether the evidence was sufficient to establish the charges of burglary, housebreaking and perverting the course of justice. The court had to consider whether the evidence was direct or circumstantial, and whether it was sufficient to establish each element of the offences beyond reasonable doubt. The court also had to consider whether the appellant's actions amounted to an attempt to pervert the course of justice.

The court found that the evidence was sufficient to establish the charges beyond reasonable doubt. The court found that the evidence was largely circumstantial, but that the inferences drawn from the evidence were reasonable. The court found that the appellant's actions amounted to an attempt to pervert the course of justice by destroying evidence of his presence at the scene. The court found that the appellant's actions were deliberate and intended to interfere with the administration of justice. The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction.

The court ordered that the appellant be sentenced on a date to be fixed.

Orders