R v Lawrie
[2014] SADC 194
•21 November 2014
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 194Introduction
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 9th 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 Lawrie on the 9th day of November 2013 at Greenacres dishonestly dealt with property, namely a wallet and its contents including $30 cash, the property of Bradley Bignell, without the owner’s consent and intending to deprive the owner permanently of the property or make a serious encroachment on the owner’s proprietary rights.
Third Count
Statement of Offence
Using a Motor Vehicle without Consent. (Section 86A of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, 1935).
Particular of Offence
Charlie Ronald Lawrie on the 9th day of November 2013 at Greenacres and other places, used a motor vehicle without first obtaining the consent of the owner of that motor vehicle, Katherine Quinn.
Fourth Count
Statement of Offence
Attempting to Pervert the Course of Justice. (Section 256 of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, 1935).
Particulars of Offence
Charlie Ronald Lawrie between the 14th day of November 2013 and the 17th day of April 2014 at Adelaide, attempted to pervert the course of justice by seeking to arrange for Bradley Bignell,
Tyrone Taipari and Colin Taiparito each provide a false account.The trial
On the morning of trial the accused pleaded guilty to counts 2 and 3 on the Information. The defence then sought further particulars in relation to count 4 and these particulars were given. During the course of the trial the prosecution were called upon to elect in relation to which of the witnesses it was said the accused attempted to influence. They elected the witness Bradley Bignell and the Information was amended to delete the witnesses Tyrone Taipari and Colin Taipari.
Legal directions
The prosecution bears the onus of proving the guilt of the accused at all times. The accused does not have to prove that he did not commit the offence charged. The standard of proof is beyond reasonable doubt. The accused cannot be found guilty of the offence unless the evidence, which I accept, satisfies me beyond reasonable doubt of his guilt. In these reasons if I use the word proved, established, or satisfied then I have meant in each case to an extent that excludes reasonable doubt.
The accused is presumed by law to be innocent of the charges unless and until the evidence that I accept satisfies me that each and every element of the offence has been proven beyond reasonable doubt.
If, however, the evidence that I accept fails to satisfy me beyond reasonable doubt of any or all of the elements of the offence charged then he remains innocent and I must return a verdict or verdicts of not guilty.
If I am satisfied that there may be an explanation consistent with the innocence of the accused or I am unsure where the truth lies then I must find that the charge has not been proven to the standard required by the law and I must find the accused not guilty.
I must assess each witness as to their truthfulness and their reliability. I must determine whether I can rely upon the evidence that a witness gives. I can reject or accept all or a part of a witness’s evidence.
The accused has given evidence. He was not obliged to give evidence but chose to do so. His evidence must be considered along with the other evidence in the case. In doing so I have made due allowance for some difficulties that he may have had understanding questions asked of him and articulating his responses. Whilst I have not had regard to all the considerations raised in Stack v The State of Western Australia [2004] WASCA 300, as they are not relevant to this matter, I have had regard to the general principles in the case. I will return to this in the discussion of the accused’s and Mr Doolan’s evidence.
There are two charges remaining on the Information. I must assess these charges separately and only take into account the evidence that is relevant and admissible to the count under consideration.
I must bring an open and unprejudiced mind to the case. I must make my decision without sympathy, without prejudice, or fear and not influenced by public opinion in relation to this matter.
Elements of the offence
Count 1: Aggravated Serious Criminal Trespass in a Place of Residence
Each element must be proven beyond reasonable doubt.
1The accused entered or remained in a place of residence. A ‘place of residence’ means any building or part of a building used as a place of residence.
2The accused did so intentionally as a trespasser that is, he entered or remained without the consent of the occupier and he knew he did not have the consent of the occupier or was recklessly indifferent in respect of their consent.
3At the time of the trespass the accused intended to commit an offence, namely theft.
The circumstance of aggravation is that another person was lawfully present in the place of residence and the accused knew or was reckless about whether anyone was in the place.
Count 4: Attempting to Pervert the Course of Justice
An attempt to pervert the course of justice is the doing of some act, which has a tendency to pervert the course of justice with an intent to pervert the course of justice.
1The prosecution must prove the doing of some act or series of acts which has a tendency to pervert the course of justice.
The acts alleged in the present case are a series of conversations that were recorded from the Adelaide Remand Centre to various individuals in which the accused asked those individuals to encourage a statement or statements from Bradley Bignell that were knowingly false.
2The prosecution must prove that, at the time of the commission of the act or acts, the accused had the intention to pervert the course of justice.
It is not necessary for the prosecution to prove that, in fact, the course of justice was actually perverted. The offence is the doing of an act or acts which might lead to a perversion of the course of justice with the intention that they should do so.
Course of the trial
The prosecution opened on the basis that the accused had entered into the complainants’ home at about 6am on 9 November 2013 while three occupants[1] were asleep in the house. The Crown suggested that the real issue in dispute in relation to the aggravated serious criminal trespass was whether the accused had entered as a trespasser and whether the Crown could prove that he knew at the time he entered that he did not have the consent of the occupiers, or was at the very least recklessly indifferent to their consent.
[1] This was despite the fact the charge particularised two individuals.
In relation to count 4 on the Information, it is the Crown case that following the accused’s arrest and whilst he was remanded in custody he had made a series of phone calls, over a period of about five months, in which he was attempting to get the occupants of the home to give a statement to his solicitor to the effect that they knew him and that he had permission to be in their home on that morning. In due course, the prosecutor itemised each of the calls and the inferences that the prosecution seek to be drawn from those calls.
Mr Redford outlined the issues in contention. He said that it was not in dispute that the accused had entered into the residence[2] but denied that he entered as the trespasser and with the intention to commit an offence. In respect of the offence of attempting to pervert the course of justice, he said that it was denied that the accused had engaged in any conduct that had a tendency to pervert the course of justice. It was submitted that the accused was seeking to secure and obtain evidence in support of his then instructions.
[2] TT 39
Evidence
The prosecution called Bradley Graham Bignell. He is a 21 year old man who was living at the home in Greenacres with Colin Taipari and Tyrone Taipari. He was renting his room from Colin Taipari.[3] On 9 November 2013 he was driving a Mitsubishi Magna, South Australian registration WEV 993. That vehicle belonged to a person by the name of Katherine Quinn who had lent it to him about six months prior to this date.
[3] TT 41
Mr Bignell gave evidence that on the evening of 8 November 2013 he went to a friend’s house in Enfield. He drove his car there and returned to his own home at about 11pm. He parked his car on the front lawn and came into the house.[4] When he came into the house he put his wallet and car keys on the table in the meals area and went to bed. He awoke at about 6.30am and walked into the lounge room and noticed that his car was missing from the front lawn. He then woke up Tyrone Taipari to see whether he knew anything about it. He then rang Colin Taipari, who had left the house by this stage, to see whether he knew where the car was. Mr Bignell then went to the front of his house and noticed some police officers at the end of the street. He told those police officers that his vehicle and his wallet were missing. He gave evidence that he did not give anyone permission to come into the house, remove his wallet or take the car.
[4] TT 46
Mr Bignell denied that he knew the accused or that he had ever met him. He said he knew a man by the name of Dwayne Wilson who came to the house on occasions and he had known him for about 17 years. He also knew a person by the name of Pauly Doolan. He said he had grown up with Mr Doolan but had not seen him for about two years.
Mr Bignell was cross-examined. He was asked whether the external doors, in particular the laundry door and the sliding doors, are locked. He said that the laundry door was usually locked but the sliding door may be unlocked. He was asked questions in relation to the shed at the rear of the premises. It was suggested to him that the shed was “decked out” and used as a playroom with lounge chairs, a television and an Xbox. Mr Bignell agreed with this. The following was suggested to him:[5]
[5] TT 54:4 – 56:10
QI'm going to put this to you. I'm going to put to you at 7.45 a car pulled up in the driveway, you weren't home at that time, and I'll come to who I'm going to say was in that car because I'm going to suggest to you that you communicated with the people, and that sometime later, but before 9 o'clock, you pulled up and you pulled up on the street.
AOn the street?
QYes
HER HONOUR: You haven't been asked a question yet. Can you ask a question, Mr Greenwell? Break it down.
MR GREENWELL: Yes, I will.
QYou've got the scenario that I have put to you;
AYep.
QDid you, sometime after 8 o'clock on the 8th, pull up at home.
ANo.
QI put it to you that you did arrive home around about 8 o'clock. Your answer is no.
AYes.
QI put it to you there was a gathering of people in the games room.
APardon? Say that again.
QThere was a group of people in the shed or the - I'm going to call it the 'games room'. Are you happy with that.
AYep.
QThere was a group of people in the games room.
AI don't know.
QSo are you saying when you came home there was no-one in the games room.
AI don't know. I didn't go out to the games room.
QYou came straight home and went to bed.
ANo.
QWhat did you do.
AAre you talking about before I went to my mate's or after?
QNo.
AAfter?
QI think you've said you came home at 11 o'clock.
AYes.
QAfter you'd been to your friend's place.
AYes.
QI'm saying to you that you came home around about 8 o'clock, not 11 o'clock, and that you went to the games room. Did you go to the games room that night.
ANo.
QYou didn't.
ANo.
QYou came home and parked your car on the lawn, I think you've told her Honour.
AYes.
QAnd went in through the kitchen door, the sliding doors.
ANo. Went in through the front door.
QYou went through the front door.
AYes.
QAnd went straight to bed.
AYes.
QDidn't speak to Tyrone.
ANo.
QDidn't speak to Colin.
ATyrone wasn't home and Colin was asleep.
QDid you hear any noise from outside at all.
ANo.
QNone at all.
ANo.
Mr Bignell said that he knew that Dwayne Wilson had a close relationship with Colin Taipari and he was asked whether the accused, Dwayne’s cousin, would be welcome at the house. Mr Bignell responded saying it is not his house, it is Colin’s house, and it would be up to him. Mr. Bignell said that he did not know of anyone called Nicole Waria or Ethan Love but he knew Sonny Sumner who was one of his cousin’s mates. He was also asked whether he ever received the keys for the Magna back and he said he had never seen them again.[6] It was suggested to him that Sonny had burnt his own wallet in the shed on that night and that the witness was present for it. The witness denied that.
[6] TT 61
Colin Taipari was called to give evidence. He is 54 years old. He has lived in the house at Greenacres for approximately seven years. In November 2013 was living there with his son, Tyrone, and Bradley Bignell. He gave evidence that he drove a BMW 525, which he parked on the driveway close to the front door when he was at home.[7] He said that on the evening of Friday 8 November 2013 he was at home. He said that Tyrone and Bradley were also at home and that they had some friends visiting. He said they were all in the shed that night. He said he went to bed between 10.30 – 11.00pm. He starts work at 7am and has a routine where his alarm clock goes off at 5.45am, he hits the snooze button and he gets up at 6am, has a shower, gets dressed and then goes to work. He thought that he did this on the morning of Saturday 9 November 2013. He normally leaves his keys on the table and when he collected his keys that morning he noticed that Bradley’s keys were also there.[8] He gave evidence that when he left for work he went out through the front door.
[7] TT 63
[8] TT 66
Colin Taipari gave evidence that he had never met the accused, Charlie Lawrie, or seen him at his house. He said he had never given him permission to be in the house. He said there were some people who had unconditional approval to be in his house and they were two brothers and a cousin but that he could not remember their names.
Colin Taipari was cross-examined. It was put to him that one of the people that had unconditional approval to come into the house was Dwayne Wilson. He agreed with that. It was put to him that the accused and Dwayne Wilson were cousins. He agreed that the accused and Dwayne Wilson looked like each other but he was unaware that they were cousins.
Colin Taipari was cross-examined about the games room. He agreed that it had an Xbox and a television and had some couches in it. He agreed that the boys and their friends used to get together in the games room.
He was asked about the security of the house. He said that the doors in his house were normally closed but never locked until this incident occurred.[9]
[9] TT 70
Colin Taipari said he does not know anybody called ‘Pauly Doolan’, ‘Sonny Sumner’, ‘Nicole’ or ‘Jax’. He said that he came home between 5.30 – 7.30pm generally, but could not remember what time he came home on 8 November 2013. He said that he heard music coming from the back room and noises coming from that area. During the course of the evening, Tyrone and Bradley came into the house and they had someone else visiting who he thought was Dwayne. When they came inside he was in the lounge room.
Colin Taipari said that when he left for work in the morning, Bradley’s car was on the lawn but he could not be sure whether it was in the same place or not as when he had arrived home the night before.
The prosecution called Tyrone Taipari. He is 20 years old and has lived at the address at Greenacres for about eight years with Bradley Bignell and his father. He gave evidence that he went to school with Bradley Bignell. He said that on the afternoon of 8 November 2013 he was at home drinking with Dwayne and Johnboy . During the course of the evening other people came to the house including Dwayne’s cousin, Pauly Doolan. He was not able to say what time any of these people came or how many people came to the house. He had very little recollection of what he did earlier on Friday. He thought that Dwayne Wilson had come around as early as 3pm on that day. He said they were drinking in the shed and watching football.[10] He said that in the group of people who arrived later in the evening there were people that he did not know. He said the men stayed there all night but that they left the house whilst the sun was still up before about 8 o’clock at night. He said that Bradley Bignell was at a mate’s house.[11]
[10] TT 80
[11] TT 81
Tyrone Taipari said that he did not give permission to any of these people to come around to his house or to enter his house at 6am on 9 November 2013. He said that he did not know a man by the name of Charlie Lawrie, had never seen the man in the dock who was Charlie Lawrie, or heard of the name Charlie Lawrie. When asked whether Charlie Lawrie was one of the men who had been at his house on 8 November, he said “could’ve been, I don’t remember”. He said that he had not given that male permission to come and go from the house as he pleased.
Tyrone Taipari said that he had had about one and half bottles of bourbon on this night and in addition to that was smoking cannabis. He said for this reason his memory was defective. He gave evidence that he had been at a mate’s house after the people had been in the shed. He had walked to his mate’s house, which had taken about 10-15 minutes, but he could not remember very much about it.
Tyrone Taipari gave evidence that Pauly Doolan came to his house after 9 November 2013 on two occasions, but he could only remember one of them. He thought it was before Christmas of that year and that he had spoken to Pauly Doolan when he attended. His memory was very sparse in relation to the conversation, but he knew that they spoke about the case and that Pauly Doolan asked about the car.[12]
[12] TT 87:4 – 36.
HER HONOUR
Q.What did you say to him about the case.
A. I don’t even remember.
Q.Who else was home.
A.Just me.
Q.Where did you to speak to him.
A.In the lounge room.
Q.Did you sit down on chairs.
A. He sat down on the couch.
Q.How long was he there for.
A. About 15 minutes.
Q.Was it day or night.
A.It was day.
Q.Do you recall what he said to you when he came into the house.
A. No.
Q. Did you invite him.
A. Yeah.
Q. Then you both went and sat on the lounge.
A. Sat on the lounge.
Q. He wanted to talk about the case.
A. I guess so.
Q. Did he or not.
A. He did, I don’t remember.
Q. What case are we talking about.
A. Just about what happened.
Q. What do you think happened.
A. He came to my house and stole the keys and stole the car.
Q. Who did.
A. Charlie.
Q. Do you know Charlie.
A. I know his name now, since it all happened.
Tyrone Taipari was cross-examined. He said that he has known Dwayne Wilson for many years and they attended the same primary school. He said he went to high school with Pauly Doolan. He was asked whether he kept up a relationship with Pauly Doolan and Dwayne Wilson. He said mainly Dwayne and Johnboy. He said that he found out a few weeks ago that the accused was a cousin of Dwayne Wilson’s but that he had never seen the accused until today. He was asked whether any of the following people were drinking in the shed on the night of 8 November:[13]
[13] TT 89:34 – 90:38.
QI’m going to give you some names of a list that Pauly says – I’m going to give you a list of some names and see if you can remember whether any of these people were drinking in the shed: Dwayne Wilson.
AYep.
QTroy.
AI don’t know a Troy. Is there a nickname?
QI don’t know. I only know him as Troy in my list.
AI don’t know a Troy.
QYou don’t know a Troy, okay. Tyrone – you were there.
AYep.
QEthan Love, do you remember Ethan Being there.
ANo, I don’t think so.
QBut he could have been
ACould have been.
QJohn Barco; do you know a John Barco
AJohn Barco?
QDo you know a John that was drinking.
AYeah, Johnboy, that could be his last name.
QSo Johnboy was drinking there.
AYep.
QNicole Wilson.
AI’m not sure.
QYou know a Nicole Wilson, don’t you.
AI think that’s Dwayne’s sister.
QYes, that’s right.
ABut I don’t remember her being there. She could have been.
QShe could have been.
AShe could have been.
QSonny; was Sonny there.
AI don’t know a Sonny.
QSonny Sumner; does that help.
AI don’t remember him being there.
QDo you know a Jackson; I think they usually shorten it to ‘Jack’.
AI know a Jackson.
QWas he there.
ACould have been, I don’t remember.
QCharlie Lawrie, was he there.
AHe could have been.
QSo Charlie could have been there.
ACould have been.
It was put to him that the accused had been one of the people who attended at his house and during the course of the evening the accused asked him if it was alright to inject himself with crystal meth.[14] Tyrone Taipari said he did not remember that at all. It was suggested to him that he had in fact gone into the house and got water for the accused so that he could mix it up. Mr Taipari said “no way”[15] He said that he no recollection of anybody injecting themselves with needles on that night. He agreed that he had been smoking cannabis on that night and that there were a number of people in the room smoking cannabis. He said he could not remember who those people were. It was put to him that the group of people who arrived at the house at 7.45pm included Dwayne. He disagreed with this proposition and said that Dwayne had been at this house from about 3.30 – 4.00pm and remained throughout the night. He was unsure of the time that these people arrived. The following propositions were put to him:[16]
[14] TT 94
[15] TT 94:34
[16] TT 97:6-26
QAnd do you remember the accused asking you could he inject himself.
ANo.
QYou don’t. Do you remember him asking could he come around at any time.
ANo.
QBut he was welcome there that night.
AYes, he came with a group of mates.
OBJECTION: MR WILSON OBJECTS
HER HONOUR: Just a moment.
HER HONOUR
QDid Charlie come to your house that night.
AWith a group of mates I guess.
QDo you remember him coming to your house.
ANo.
QWhy do you say that he could have come to your house then.
ABecause that’s what he said. Apparently he has come.
QSo you are just agreeing with the questions that are asked.
ANo.
It was put to him that the group of people arrived at about 7.45pm and that they stayed for about an hour and then left. He responded with “it was about that, they weren’t there for that long”.[17]
[17] TT 98:27
Mr Redford made an application that count 4 be severed from the Information. He made that application on the basis that it was duplicitous. I ruled that I would not sever the count merely because it was duplicitous and this was a matter that needed to be dealt with separately. Mr Redford then indicated that he would seek a stay in respect of this count until the duplicity point had been resolved. At that time the prosecution had not been called on the elect. I invited the prosecutor to do this. The prosection elected to proceed, in relation to count 4, on one person being Bradley Bignell. The information was amended to reflect this.
The prosecution indicated that it continued to rely upon all of the statements made on the telephone by the accused to various individuals in support of this charge. The prosecutor also prepared an additional table in which he set out the telephone calls and the inferences to be drawn from those calls.[18] These particulars and the election appear to have satisfied counsel for Mr Lawrie and the argument was abandoned.
[18] TT 121
A series of statements were tendered by consent:
·A statement from Constable Shepperd that at 8.10am on 9 November 2013 he heard a transmission over the radio in relation to the accused. He knew that the accused was an associate of Rebecca Agius. He drove to Rebecca Agius’ house and continued east along McIntyre Road and observed the suspect vehicle parked 200 metres east of her address. A cordon was then set up around the premises. At 8.35am a Holden sedan registration number WGY 862 was seen to arrive at the property and the male driver entered the property. At 8.55am, Andrew Timothy Agius came to the front of the property and said the accused wanted to hand himself in. The accused was then arrested, given his rights and taken to the Holden Hill Police Station.
·A statement of Constable Melissa Perry; at 8.30am she was on mobile patrol and attended at the McIntyre Road address. She said that whilst standing in the front yard she saw a brown Holden sedan pull up parallel to the address and then reverse into the driveway. The male driver was Charlie Andrew Agius and a short time later he came out of the address, was waving his arms around and then walked towards the police. Charlie Agius informed a police officer that the accused was in the house and wanted to hand himself in. The accused then made his way into the front garden and was apprehended. There were also two females present, Rebecca Agius and Sylvia Agius. At about 9.30am the premises were searched and nothing of interest was located.
·A statement of Senior Constable Frisby was also tendered. He is a member of the Dog Operations Unit and attended with PD Oscar, at about 6.50am on Saturday 9 November 2013, at the premises at Greenacres. He searched the streets surrounding the premises including Vasey, Berryman and Wynngale Streets but was unable to locate any person. At about 7.20am he moved on to Moreshead Street and was approached by an occupant at number 11 who stated his vehicle was missing and his wallet and keys were taken from inside his house. At about 8.50am he attended at McIntyre Road and stood by as the accused exited the house.
·A statement of Detective Brevet Sergeant Tait; he said that at 5.50am on Saturday 9 November 2013 he was performing plain clothes duties and attended at Warramunga Street, Greenacres for the purpose of monitoring compliance with parole conditions imposed on the accused. These conditions included a curfew that he remained at the premises between 9pm and 6am.
Whilst travelling into Warramunga Street, Greenacres, DBS Sergeant Tait saw the accused standing near the front passenger door of a taxi. The accused was wearing a blue long sleeved hooded jumper, a pair of black shorts and a black baseball cap. He recognised him from having previously spoken to him at 11.30pm the night before and 1am on Friday 8 November 2013 when they had been checking on his compliance with curfew conditions.
As DBS Tait and his partner approached the taxi the accused opened the front passenger door. DBS Tait considered that the accused was in breach of his curfew conditions. The police vehicle’s emergency lights were activated and the police vehicle parked directly behind the taxi to prevent the taxi from driving away. DBS Tait approached the accused and said words to the effect of “just stay there Charlie”. The accused said “Oh fuck off. I’ve been good”. He then said to the accused “calm down and wait there”. There was then a short conversation and the police officer said to the accused “you are under arrest”. With that the accused turned and ran in an easterly direction on the footpath of Warramunga Street. The accused’s shoes fell off his feet, he dropped his sunglasses and his mobile phone and left them on the footpath. The police officer gave chase and followed him east on Warramunga Street and then south east across Manoora Street into Wootten Street and lost sight of him momentarily as he ran into Wootten Street. He then regained sight of the accused and saw him running north through a vacant block on Wootten Street and scale the northern boundary fence of the block jumping in to the rear of the yard at 34 Manoora Street, Greenacres.
A cordon was set up. The dog squad was brought in. A ‘track’ was located heading north through backyards towards Moreshead Street. At 7.15am a member of the public approached the police officers and told them that his motor vehicle had been stolen from the premises at 11 Moreshead Street, Greenacres. This address was about five houses north east from where the accused was last sighted by the police.
The crime scene examiner was requested to attend at 11 Moreshead Street. At 8.30am, Detective Brevet Sergeant Tait received notification that the motor vehicle taken from 11 Moreshead Street, Greenacres had been located at McIntyre Road, Salisbury East. The police officer located and retained the Samsung mobile phone, a pair of grey ‘Lucid’ brand sunglasses and a pair of black ‘Adidas’ running shoes that were dropped by the accused onto the footpath.
·A statement of Senior Constable Stevenson. He is stationed with the Dog Operations Unit. At 6.40am on 9 November 2013 he attended at the intersection of Manoora Street and Wootten Street in Greenacres in relation to a report that the accused had run from the police. He commenced searches with PD Iggy. PD Iggy gave indications of a person having been in the yards of 34 and 34A Manoora Street. Those yards were directly to the south of the intersection of Manoora Street and Moreshead Street. The police officer then moved to Moreshead Street and commenced searches in the yards on the northern side. PD Iggy gave no further indications. Senior Constable Stevenson then attended at McIntyre Road, Salisbury East at 8.50am on the same date and maintained cordon until the accused was taken into custody.
·A statement of Mark Anthony Humphries was tendered.[19] He said that about 6am on Saturday 9 November 2013 he was standing in his front yard at 7 Moreshead Street, Greenacres. He was checking up and down the street because it is something that he usually does. At that time he saw a car reverse out of number 11 and then drive east. The car did not do anything that made him think that it was suspicious. The car was a light green Mitsubishi sedan.
·Two statements were tendered from Katherine Emma Quinn.[20] She was the partner of Dwayne Wilson. She and Dwayne Wilson have a child, Dwayne Wilson Junior, who is five years old. She is aware that Dwayne Wilson Senior is a friend of Bradley Bignell and Tyrone Taipari as they all went to school together. She also knows Pauly Doolan who is Dwayne Wilson Senior’s first cousin and she has known him for about ten years. The last time she socialised with Pauly Doolan was about three years ago at his daughter’s birthday party. She also knows Nicole Waria as she is Pauly Doolan’s sister and Dwayne Wilson’s first cousin. She last saw Nicole Waria about one week prior to her statement. She knows Sonny Sumner because when she was about 12 years old she used to play football with him. She last saw him a few months before this statement.
She also made a statement to the police on 7 December 2013. In that statement she said she is the registered owner of a blue Mitsubishi Magna, registration number WEV 993. In August 2013 she lost her licence and gave the car to Bradley Bignell because he is a friend of hers who needed a car to drive around in. She said that Bradley called her about one month ago telling her that her car had been stolen. She was asked by the police whether she knows a person by the name of Charlie Lawrie. She said that she has never heard of this person. She was shown a photograph annexed to the statement. It appears to be a photograph of Charlie Lawrie. She said she had never seen this male before and he had never been in her car or at her house. She said no-one had permission to take her car and she had given permission to Bradley Bignell to drive and use it.
·A statement was tendered from Sukhwinder Sidhu.[21] Mr Sidhu is a taxi driver employed by Yellow Cabs. At 5.50am on 9 November 2013 he was driving a cab and received a message to go to 24 Warramunga Street, Greenacres. The job was to pick up a person at that address and to take them to Salisbury East. He arrived at 24 Warramunga Street and a male came towards the taxi and opened the passenger door. He was getting into the taxi when the police arrived. He had a brief conversation with the male and the male ran away. The computer print out from Yellow Cabs is annexed to the statement.
[19] P5
[20] P6
[21] P7
A disc was tendered that included a number of phone calls that had been made by the accused from the Adelaide Remand Centre that had been taped by the authorities. These 31 calls have been transcribed. A chart with the caller ID, the date and time of the call, the number to whom the call had been made, under whose name that call was stored in the system, was also prepared. This was annexed to the document that was MFI P9. The telephone calls were played to the court. In due course I will return to the calls but there are two calls with particular significance relied upon by the Crown. These have been referred to as calls 11 and 15.[22]
[22] P8; call 2625481 14 January 2014 at 10:59; call 2626815 15 January 2014 at 15:58.
ADELAIDE REMAND CENTRE PRISON SWITCHBOARD
This call is coming from ADELAIDE REMAND CENTRE and will be subject to monitoring and recording, if you do not wish to receive this call hang up now. If you have any concerns about a prisoner’s wellbeing please contact the prison immediately. Go ahead please
FEMALE Hey
CHARLIE RONALD LAWRIE Hey
FEMALE Here someone wanted to talk to you, here.
PAULY DOOLAN
Oi Cuz
CHARLIE RONALD LAWRIE
Oi
PAULY DOOLAN
Oi what are you doing?
CHARLIE RONALD LAWRIE
Nah fuck all Cuz man. I am fucked. What are you doing man?
PAULY DOOLAN
Yeah oi cuz I went around and see that fella and they say they havent said fuck all to the dooyas.
CHARLIE RONALD LAWRIE
Oi cuz I got paperwork in my fucking cell right now saying otherwise cuz.
PAULY DOOLAN
From who?
CHARLIE RONALD LAWRIE
Oi Clifton go and grab that paperwork and statements from my cell quick ways
PAULY DOOLAN
Yeah Kate was over here yesterday, the owner of the car, but she hasn’t pushed any charges unless that fellas dad of the house.
CHARLIE RONALD LAWRIE
Yeah, nah, nah, the fellas dad never said nothing cuz, it only has them two in there.
PAULY DOOLAN
Who? (inaudible)
CHARLIE RONALD LAWRIE
Yeah, yeah, wait the fellas name is on the paperwork now, yeah cuz, yeah listen, all now, yeah I mean cuz I can’t do this without this happening
CHARLIE RONALD LAWRIE
Cuz you know what I mean and I don’t give a fuck how long I do cuz, it doesn’t bother me alright but it’s just that I have go Gail now and things have changed in my life now and you know I, I, I will cop it on the chin cuz and I will get out and I will fucking terrorize them fuckers.
PAULY DOOLAN
Yeah I know, what is his name? Is it (inaudible)?
CHARLIE RONALD LAWRIE
Yeah wait there, wait, I have got the
PAULY DOOLAN
That’s that young fella? (inaudible) with the dreadlocks?
CHARLIE RONALD LAWRIE
Yeah, yeah, find that fella, where is that fella, victims, where is it? Clifton here. There, what’s that name, top?
Clifton LAWRIE
CLIFTON LAWRIE
Beagle Bradey
CHARLIE RONALD LAWRIE
Who is Beagle Braden?
PAULY DOOLAN
Who?
CHARLIE RONALD LAWRIE
Beagle Bradey.
PAULY DOOLAN
Beagle Braden?
CHARLIE RONALD LAWRIE
Yeah
PAULY DOOLAN
Who is Beagle Bradey?
CHARLIE RONALD LAWRIE
And what is that name there?
CLIFTON LAWRIE
TAIPARI, No, TAIPARI, uhhh Tyrone.
CHARLIE RONALD LAWRIE
Tyrone
PAULY DOOLAN
Tyrone?
CHARLIE RONALD LAWRIE
Yeah
PAULY DOOLAN
Tyrone? Who is Tyrone? And who?
CHARLIE RONALD LAWRIE
Tyrone and its got, its got all the Police here and then its got victims.
PAULY DOOLAN
Victims?
CHARLIE RONALD LAWRIE
Yeah like victims
PAULY DOOLAN
Oi but because yeah coz his name is (inaudible) cuz and the fella across the road, the witness, might have been going against you.
CHARLIE RONALD LAWRIE
Nah, there are no victims cuz, yeah cuz no one ever seen me, leaving the house, or coming out of their house right, all it is that I got found 50 metres up the road from where the car was dumped, at beccas and I live around the corner. And that’s all they got me on cuz. There is no fingerprints, there is no nothing.
PAULY DOOLAN
Yeah and what is that fellas name? He is saying what?
CHARLIE RONALD LAWRIE
Yeah there saying, wait there, where is, wait there.
PAULY DOOLAN
(Inaudible) lighter
CLIFTON LAWRIE
Tyrone
CHARLIE RONALD LAWRIE
Tyrone what?
CLIFTON LAWRIE
TAIPARI
CHARLIE RONALD LAWRIE
TAIPARI. What the fuck is that shit? Wait there, I will go through it. Alright here it is, they got, it says right here.
PAULY DOOLAN
Because Pauly, that’s that young fella that lived there, you know,
CHARLIE RONALD LAWRIE
Yeah, yeah, it’s got the fella that went to pick the car up, that owned the car cuz right, and he’s went to the cop shop and picked the car from up Elizabeth and said that.
PAULY DOOLAN
Bradley BIGNALL wasn’t it?
CHARLIE RONALD LAWRIE
Yeah that fella there
PAULY DOOLAN
Bradley BIGNALL hey?
PAULY DOOLAN
He’s that fellas whose wallet was missing?
CHARLIE RONALD LAWRIE
Yea
PAULY DOOLAN
Yeah that what he, the cars registered in his name hey?
CHARLIE RONALD LAWRIE
Yeah
PAULY DOOLAN
Well Gail’s, Gail’s here now and she says she will pick me up tomorrow. Bradley BIGNALL.
CHARLIE RONALD LAWRIE
Bradley BIGNALL, Graeme BIGNALL wasn’t it?
PAULY DOOLAN
Yeah I know that, well I will get his number in a minute, then I will ring him.
CHARLIE RONALD LAWRIE
What does that there say?
CLIFTON LAWRIE
Tyrone’s dad.
CHARLIE RONALD LAWRIE
Tyrone’s Dad. Who is Tyrone?
PAULY DOOLAN
That might be that fella with the dreadlocks cuz.
CHARLIE RONALD LAWRIE
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
PAULY DOOLAN
That might be his real name.
CHARLIE RONALD LAWRIE
Yeah coz cuz, remember when I went and I said oi bruz, I inject this shit, you know I shoot up and I said is it alright if I have it here? And he goes yeah no worries. Alright cuz because Gail has got my lawyer’s number right, because I told my lawyer that you took me into that house alright, so I need you to say, because cuz they think they are doing the right thing by not saying nothing, that they don’t know me, you know what I mean, and you know, but,
PAULY DOOLAN
Yeah well I just get them to say that they do know you.
CHARLIE RONALD LAWRIE
Yeah don’t go to the dooyas and put in a statement in. Get my lawyers to go see them cuz.
PAULY DOOLAN
I will get Gail because she said she will come here tomorrow and meet me and me and her will go the fellas house.
CHARLIE RONALD LAWRIE
Yeah, Yep do that cuz because I have got court on the 11th of February because my lawyer will go and pick Gail up and then go pick you up and then go the fellas house.
PAULY DOOLAN
Yeah well I will meet Gail tomorrow at the court at 4.30 then.
CHARLIE RONALD LAWRIE
Cuz, please, please, I am begging you cuz.
PAULY DOOLAN
Yeah I will do it for sure cuz. I will give you my word. I will do it cuz. I will meet up with Gail tomorrow afternoon and I will go and see that fella. I will take Gail with him and sign for your lawyer.
CHARLIE RONALD LAWRIE
Yeah alright then, you want to talk to Clifton?
PAULY DOOLAN
Yeah but I swear to god I will do it tomorrow my nigga.
CHARLIE RONALD LAWRIE
Yeah alright then. You got contact numbers to ring up and shit.
PAULY DOOLAN
Yeah I have got Gails number.
CHARLIE RONALD LAWRIE
Alright my brother make sure this happens tomorrow.
PAULY DOOLAN
Yeah I will cuz.
CHARLIE RONALD LAWRIE
Yeah I love you little brother.
PAULY DOOLAN
Yeah love you too.
CHARLIE RONALD LAWRIE
Yep
CHARLIE RONALD LAWRIE
Make sure that happens tomorrow man I don’t give a fuck if you got to skip work or what man because I’ll get out on the 11th if this happens
FEMALE
Yep I (inaudible) I got work until the afternoon but I’ll pick Pauly up in the afternoon
CHARLIE RONALD LAWRIE
Yeah, well what time do you finish work 4 O’Clock
FEMALE
Um it should be early so hopefully around lunch time 2 O’clock
CHARLIE RONALD LAWRIE
Yeah
FEMALE
So I’ll make sure
CHARLIE RONALD LAWRIE
(inaudible)
FEMALE
You never rang back yesterday
CHARLIE RONALD LAWRIE
Nah, nah, nah because I could have jumped on the phone at 20 past but it would have only been 6 minutes but I still would have got charged a mobile amount so I just thought I’d wait for the tomorrow alright but yeah I want to go through these statements in a minute I’ll read them in a minute and things like that because if this happens babe I’ll get out on the 11th
FEMALE
Yes I love you
CHARLIE RONALD LAWRIE
I love you too where you at
FEMALE
What Pauly’s nanna
CHARLIE RONALD LAWRIE
Where
FEMALE
Tennille showed me where they stayed so we come here because we finished work for the day
CHARLIE RONALD LAWRIE
Yep
FEMALE
Dropped Tennille and then Daniel and then I’ll be back up Mum’s then
CHARLIE RONALD LAWRIE
Yeah and after you finish doing that ring my lawyer up alright
FEMALE
Yeah tomorrow
CHARLIE RONALD LAWRIE
Yeah
FEMALE
Yep alright babe
CHARLIE RONALD LAWRIE
Alright
FEMALE
Yep you ring me back later
CHARLIE RONALD LAWRIE
Yeah I’ll ring back later I’m finishing my phone call first
FEMALE
Yeah
CHARLIE RONALD LAWRIE
Alright and fucking yeah because if this happens I’ll get out man you know what I mean
FEMALE
Yep
CHARLIE RONALD LAWRIE
I’ll just go through all the statements again read it and shit like that and fucking yeah alright yeah fucking yeah
FEMALE
(inaudible)
CHARLIE RONALD LAWRIE
You know what I mean like in a way like I read the statements right and they think they are doing the right thing by saying they don’t know me but in a way that’s bringing me down
FEMALE
Yeah
CHARLIE RONALD LAWRIE
You know
FEMALE
Yeah
CHARLIE RONALD LAWRIE
Because fucking hell man I understand like I know exactly what the cops would have been doing blah, blah this and that you know what I mean
CHARLIE RONALD LAWRIE
Yeah (inaudible) yeah fucking man (inaudible) fucking
FEMALE
Yeah I’ll do it tomorrow, after work
CHARLIE RONALD LAWRIE
Because these cunts they’ll be listening to my calls these cops right you know
FEMALE
Yeah
CHARLIE RONALD LAWRIE
And the thing about it though man is right like fuck them lot that’s why it’s got to happen the way it’s got to happen like through my lawyer and things like that so then they don’t look like they are getting intimidated and things like that because it’s not what’s happening you know what I mean but like I said to Pauly I don’t give a fuck man like if I you know I woke up this morning thinking yeah I’m pleading guilty to this fucking charge I’ve had enough of it and things like that but I’ve got you now and things have changed in my life and you know what I mean I’ll bite my tongue for fucking how long I don’t give a fuck mate but you know like because I’m telling you now if I do get time I’m not going for parole or nothing so if I get 5 or 6 years I’m doing the whole fucking lot
FEMALE
Don’t stress me out
Call 2626815
ADELAIDE REMAND CENTRE PRISON SWITCHBOARD
This call is coming from ADELAIDE REMAND CENTRE and will be subject to monitoring and recording, if you do not wish to receive this call hang up now. If you have any concerns about a prisoner’s wellbeing please contact the prison immediately. Go ahead please
CHARLIE RONALD LAWRIE
Oi, Oi
FEMALE
Hey
CHARLIE RONALD LAWRIE
What you doing
FEMALE
Just at mums here just having these kids for a couple of hours. I’m going to drop them off directly because Pauly rang me just after six.
CHARLIE RONALD LAWRIE
Yeah
FEMALE
And he’s at semaphore
CHARLIE RONALD LAWRIE
Yeah
FEMALE
So I’m, I’m on the phone fucking wait, so I’m going to go pick him up and he’s going to take me to that house
CHARLIE RONALD LAWRIE
Yeah
FEMALE
But that fellers at work until 5 O’Clock so Pauly I told Pauly to ring
CHARLIE RONALD LAWRIE
Which feller
FEMALE
(inaudible)
CHARLIE RONALD LAWRIE
Yeah I know that
FEMALE
Yeah
CHARLIE RONALD LAWRIE
Fucking hell hey
FEMALE
Yeah he’s going to take me there at 5 O’Clock, he’s going to ring me and I’m going to go get him okay because he said that he was going to catch the fucking train and the bus and I said well I’ll just come and pick you up okay
CHARLIE RONALD LAWRIE
Yeah
FEMALE
Mmm and then I’ll ring ya lawyer
CHARLIE RONALD LAWRIE
Yeah
FEMALE
When we’re there so I can yarn to her and see what she needs and all that
CHARLIE RONALD LAWRIE
Yeah
FEMALE
Is that alright
CHARLIE RONALD LAWRIE
Yeah make sure you ring her as soon as you get there man
FEMALE
Yeah I will baby
CHARLIE RONALD LAWRIE
And then just fucking just say it like this here (inaudible) you got a pen and paper write it down so you can tell them.
FEMALE
Yep, yep (inaudible) alright yep
CHARLIE RONALD LAWRIE
Right say right that they you know what I mean because I shouldn’t even have to say anything because Pauly took me you know what I mean they said it was alright and that to say that fucking I went there the night before
FEMALE
Yep you were there the night before mmm
CHARLIE RONALD LAWRIE
And they said it was alright for me to come around there (inaudible) you know like go around there and associate with them
FEMALE
Yep
CHARLIE RONALD LAWRIE
And they said if, what did I just say to you
FEMALE
It was alright for you to go around there
CHARLIE RONALD LAWRIE
Yeah and (inaudible) that it was alright and then that there happened and when they went and approached the dooyas they didn’t know after the fact that it was me until I went there you know what I mean like, like
FEMALE
(inaudible)
CHARLIE RONALD LAWRIE
Yeah they didn’t know it was after me until the dooyas showed them a photo and because they’ve already made the statement they thought that they were getting there self into trouble if they was going to change it
FEMALE
After the cops showed a photo (inaudible) and then they thought they’d get in trouble
CHARLIE RONALD LAWRIE
So they just went on with it and said that they didn’t know me
FEMALE
(inaudible) so they went on with it
CHARLIE RONALD LAWRIE
Yeah and, and they felt pressured into doing it because the cops hate Charlie so much
FEMALE
(inaudible) yep okay I’ve got that all down
CHARLIE RONALD LAWRIE
Yeah and you know like and they said it was alright that, that and that Tyson fella that he said it was alright that I was allowed to go there
FEMALE
(inaudible)
CHARLIE RONALD LAWRIE
Yeah and that I shouldn’t have to say because like Pauly took me there as well and Pauly needs to make a statement as well that he introduced me to these people
FEMALE
(inaudible)
CHARLIE RONALD LAWRIE
Alright
FEMALE
Yep
CHARLIE RONALD LAWRIE
What nah you already jumped on the phone, you already jumped on the phone
FEMALE
(inaudible)
CHARLIE RONALD LAWRIE
Nah but you’re after me but don’t worry about it then just save your money until tomorrow
FEMALE
(inaudible)
CHARLIE RONALD LAWRIE
Yeah and just said that it was alright that I was allowed to borrow the car but they didn’t know that until after the cops said it was me after they put the complaint in, if they knew that it was me before that they wouldn’t have done it.
FEMALE
Yep so say that bit again matey
CHARLIE RONALD LAWRIE
What
FEMALE
Say that bit again what you just said, get out I’m just talking to Charlie I’ll be finished in a sec
CHARLIE RONALD LAWRIE
That they said that they didn’t know it was me until after you know what I mean until after they made the report saying that their car and shit got stolen
FEMALE
Okay so they said that you could already that you could borrow it
CHARLIE RONALD LAWRIE
Yeah
FEMALE
That you could borrow it
CHARLIE RONALD LAWRIE
And that I could go there
FEMALE
Yep they said that you could borrow it
CHARLIE RONALD LAWRIE
And that they do know me
FEMALE
But because if they knew you took it they wouldn’t
CHARLIE RONALD LAWRIE
Yeah they would you know what I mean they wouldn’t have but because they had already went down to the cops because the cops were at the, what do you call it at the shop around the corner
FEMALE
They wouldn’t have put in
CHARLIE RONALD LAWRIE
Yeah, yeah if they knew it was me before they approached the cops and thing they wouldn’t have done it right
FEMALE
Yeah
CHARLIE RONALD LAWRIE
That the cops already went there and finger printed it and things like that they thought that they was going to get in trouble saying well yeah we do know him, you know what I mean yeah.
FEMALE
Yep okay so I’ve got down here that Tyson needs to do the same thing as well
CHARLIE RONALD LAWRIE
Yeah
FEMALE
And also that Pauly that
CHARLIE RONALD LAWRIE
Yeah
FEMALE
He took you there
CHARLIE RONALD LAWRIE
Yeah and he introduced me to them
FEMALE
Yep okay
CHARLIE RONALD LAWRIE
And to tell Pauly to say that his Cousin was there as well you know what I mean like to say that me, Pauly and his sister went there. Pauly just needs to say that he took me there and that because I know these cunts will be listening to my call and that but the thing about it though is that them fellers are frightened you know what I mean thinking that they’re going to get in trouble
FEMALE
Yeah for like yeah
CHARLIE RONALD LAWRIE
Yeah
FEMALE
I get what you mean babe I do, I do
CHARLIE RONALD LAWRIE
After going to the (inaudible) and thing and that and then
FEMALE
And then realising it was you after
CHARLIE RONALD LAWRIE
Yeah after the dooyas went there you know
FEMALE
Yeah
CHARLIE RONALD LAWRIE
Yeah so they think by saying you know we don’t know Charlie and we’ve never seen him before you know what I mean
FEMALE
(inaudible)
CHARLIE RONALD LAWRIE
Yeah, yeah
FEMALE
Yep and yeah if they said this you’d be out
CHARLIE RONALD LAWRIE
Yeah
FEMALE
Yeah
CHARLIE RONALD LAWRIE
Yeah but that’s all he needs to say
FEMALE
Okay I got it all down
CHARLIE RONALD LAWRIE
And make sure it gets done and ring my lawyer straight away
FEMALE
I will because yeah Pauly said he was going to catch the fucking train and bus and I just said well look because I picked his kids up and had them here for a couple of hours I said I’d drop them off in a minute (inaudible) wants to stay but I got work early again
CHARLIE RONALD LAWRIE
Yeah and tell them fellers right
FEMALE
Mmm
CHARLIE RONALD LAWRIE
You tell them that I said fucking you know that I really appreciate this and that you know and you know like yeah because the dooyas have just come to them with all these evidence saying we believe you know what I mean that Charlie busted into your house but they never said my name you know what I mean they would have said oh do you know Charlie you know what I mean because I was there the night before and things like that and you know like my prints are you know what I mean going to be in that car and in that shed anyway because I was you know Pauly took me there and introduced me to these people and thing yeah
FEMALE
Yep alright my baby
CHARLIE RONALD LAWRIE
Alright
FEMALE
I got credit so I’ll call your lawyer when I get there
CHARLIE RONALD LAWRIE
Yeah
FEMALE
And yeah see because I seen Dion before and he said he didn’t know where Pauly was but yeah Pauly rang me dead on 3
CHARLIE RONALD LAWRIE
(inaudible)
FEMALE
Yeah
CHARLIE RONALD LAWRIE
Yeah
FEMALE
So he kept his word and that’s what I said, I said instead of fucking around doing that I’ll just drop (inaudible) I’ll just drop his kids off
CHARLIE RONALD LAWRIE
Yeah
FEMALE
Back there because they got air conditioning and things
CHARLIE RONALD LAWRIE
Yeah
FEMALE
And then I’ll go and pick him up (inaudible) and then just take him back up that way
CHARLIE RONALD LAWRIE
Yeah
FEMALE
Okay
CHARLIE RONALD LAWRIE
Alright and fucking what you call it man because like besides that like I read all my statements and that all it said is that it’s got a partial print, I don’t know where the fuck it said that in all of this and that you know what I mean so like yeah but fucking as soon as this gets done baby I’ll probably have a chance I’ll probably get out and that you know what I mean and you know and things like that but I don’t want to say too much on the phone because they’ll use that against me
FEMALE
Yep
CHARLIE RONALD LAWRIE
And things like that when it comes to trial and things you know like
FEMALE
Mmm yep (inaudible) yeah I’m just glad I got in contact with Pauly yesterday
CHARLIE RONALD LAWRIE
Yeah
FEMALE
Just going to do this shit today but I’ll speak to them and if I can’t get in contact with the lawyer just in case she doesn’t answer the phone
CHARLIE RONALD LAWRIE
Yeah
FEMALE
I’ll tell them fellers I’ll get their number (inaudible) I’ll speak to her and see what she wants
CHARLIE RONALD LAWRIE
Yeah, yeah but do that and send her a message ring her straight away and tell her say that, that your there with Pauly and them fellers
FEMALE
Yep, yep alright babe
CHARLIE RONALD LAWRIE
Say it’s got to do with Charlie’s case
FEMALE
Yep
CHARLIE RONALD LAWRIE
Alright
FEMALE
Yep I’ll do that
CHARLIE RONALD LAWRIE
My baby I love you I’ll ring you in the morning alright
FEMALE
Alright my baby I love you
CHARLIE RONALD LAWRIE
Oi
FEMALE
What
CHARLIE RONALD LAWRIE
Ring up and book us in for Friday and then if you haven’t got work just cancel it
FEMALE
Okay
CHARLIE RONALD LAWRIE
Alright I love you bye
FEMALE
I love you
CHARLIE RONALD LAWRIE
Tell Pauly I’m relying on him
FEMALE
Yep I will
Agreed facts
A statement of agreed facts was also tendered.[23]
[23] P12
Applications
An application was made by Mr Redford at the end of the Crown case that there was no case to answer in relation to count 4. I delivered a ruling in relation to that argument at the time. Mr Redford then made a Prasad application. I declined this application as I saw no basis at all for such an application, in this case, in respect of count 4.
Defence case
Mr Lawrie gave evidence and called a witness in support of his case. Mr Lawrie said on the evening of 8 November 2013 he went to two houses. He said he attended at one of these houses with Pauly, his sister Nicole, Sonny and Jax who owned the vehicle they were using. He arrived at the premises about 7.30 to 7.45pm. He left the premises at 8.50pm. He did that because he had a curfew at 9pm. He got back to his house in the car driven by Jax. Pauly and Sonny dropped him off. He was shown photographs at the premises at 11 Moreshead Street. He said that that was the place that he was driven to at 7.30pm. The car stopped at the front just behind the letterbox and when it did they jumped out of the car and made their way into the back yard and into a shed.[24] He had not been in the shed prior to that. He said from what he remembered there were couches in the shed, it had a flat screen television, an Xbox, car tyres, dumbbells, free weights and a bench press. There were other people in the shed including Dwayne Wilson and Ethan Love. He said there was another aboriginal person with a white person both of whom he did not know.
[24] TT 183
Inside the shed he was introduced to somebody by the name of Tyrone. He was introduced to him by Dwayne Wilson. He said he was with everyone else and Dwayne invited him to sit with them all. When he went to sit there Dwayne introduced him as his cousin and Tyrone said “are you Dwayne’s cousin?” and he replied “yeah, I am” and Tyrone said “don’t be shy”. He was offered a drink by Pauly Doolan and a smoke of cannabis by Tyrone. He was asked by his counsel “did you have any crystal meth on you?” and the accused said that he did not at that time but he had left the house half way through the night and went to Rebecca’s house at Salisbury East to get methylamphetamine and then returned to the shed. When he returned to the shed he shared it out with Pauly, Nicole and Sonny. They smoked it through a glass pipe and he injected it.[25] He said he asked Tyrone if he could inject it:[26]
AI said if – you know, I like injecting it and that. ‘If you have a problem with me doing it, I’m not being rude or anything’, I said I can do my business somewhere else and that. At the time, I don’t know if he said yes or that because he was intoxicated.
Q So you don’t know whether he said ‘Yes’.
ANo, he said ‘Yes’, but I don’t know if it was – he paid any attention to what I said at the time.
[25] TT 187
[26] TT 187:33 – 188:2
He said that Tyrone got him a glass of water from inside and brought it back to him and he then mixed the crystal meth. He said that he asked Tyrone whether he could use his toilet. They had the following conversation:[27]
[27] TT 188:16 – 189:16.
QDuring the evening did you ask Tyrone whether or not you could go to the toilet.
ATo the toilet?
QYes.
AYes, I did.
QAnd did you.
AYes – I asked him and that and he asked me if it was like a No. 1 or No.2 and I said no, just No.1, and he said ‘Just go to the side of the shed’.
QDid you go into the house that night.
ANo, I did not.
QDid he say anything to you about coming around again to the house.
ANot at first and that, and we started talking and I said I live in the next street and that and he said – and when Dwayne said I was his cousin, he said he didn’t mind me popping around and that for like a blaze, whatever. He’d say a blaze.
QJust say that again.
ALike a blaze, they’d say like – as in smoke marijuana.
QThat’s called a ‘blaze’ is it.
AYeah.
QJust so I get this straight: what did he say to you about the blaze.
ATo pop around and have a mix and that every now and then.
QAnd did you say anything to him when he said that to you.
AYeah. I said ‘Yeah, no worries’ and what not, and then just got to doing what we were doing in the shed.
QWhich was. You’ve said smoking and you said shooting up. Anything else.
AJust playing the Xbox.
QDid he show you the back of the house if you needed to do a No.2.
AYes, he did.
QDid he say anything to you about which door to use.
AHe just pointed out to the door opposite to the sliding door.
Mr Lawrie then gave evidence about his curfew and the fact he was on parole.[28] He gave evidence that he only left Tyrone’s house once and that was to go to Rebecca’s house to collect the methylamphetamine.
[28] Whilst I heard evidence that Mr Lawrie was on parole at the time of this offence, I was not given any information in relation to the nature of the offending. I note that I have not taken into account in any way the fact that he had prior criminal history whether it was offences for which he had been convicted of or bad behaviour that had until that time gone unchecked.
In the early hours of 9 November he said that he got up at about 5.30am, had a shower, tidied up and waited for the curfew time to start which is 6.00am. He called a taxi to take him to Rebecca Agius’ house and then walked out the front of the house. The taxi did not arrive so he went back inside and called a taxi again and he made his way down to the front of the house, went onto the footpath and he saw the police watching him. The taxi arrived he said at about 5.58am or 5.59am. He went out to the taxi, opened the door and was getting in the car when the police approached with their sirens on. He took issue with the fact that he was breaching his curfew and said it was a couple of minutes after 6am by that stage. The police told him he was being arrested. He then ran and described the way he ran by drawing the route onto exhibit P1. He said that on his way he climbed over fences and then ran in to the back of number 11 Moreshead Street. He said he went into that house because on the night he was there Tyrone had said I could “pop over and that and yeah or what not and play the Xbox and whatever”[29].
[29] TT 198:16-18
The accused gave evidence that he went into the shed at first and was there for about three or four minutes. When nobody came out of the house he unclipped the bumbag that he was wearing, left the bumbag in the shed and walked into the house. In the bumbag he had his phone and a pair of sunglasses. He went in through the laundry door and when he got to the second door that led into the dining room he sang out and no-one answered him. He sang out again and then he walked up towards the doors. He looked to his left and saw the car keys and the wallet on the table. He said he sang out one more time and then saw police officers in the yard behind. They were going through the yards at that stage. He grabbed the keys and the wallet from the kitchen table and made his way out through the laundry door, around the side of the house and entered the vehicle through the passenger door. He started the car and drove down the street and out of Greenacres.
The accused continued his evidence the following morning. He said he went in through the brown laundry door that was closed but not locked and that he sang out twice before he entered the door and then twice when he stepped into the laundry area.[30] He did not get any answer. He then walked towards the dining room, looked at the table and saw the keys and the wallet and then picked them up and went towards the back, the same way he had walked in. He said he picked up the keys and the wallet because he was trying to get away from the police. He put the wallet under the car seat but he did not remove anything from it.
[30] TT 205.
The accused was then asked some questions about what had occurred at 7.45pm on the evening before. He said that at the time their car pulled up at the house another car also pulled up, a Mitsubishi Magna. He did not recognise the person at the time but now knows that it was Bradley Bignell. He found out it was Bradley Bignell when he came into the shed and Dwayne Wilson introduced the accused to Tyrone and Bradley as his cousin. Dwayne said “this is my cousin Charlie Lawrie. Bradley, Charlie. Charlie, Bradley. Charlie, Tyrone. Tyrone, Charlie”. He said this was a different conversation to the one in which he had originally been introduced to Tyrone because this occurred after he had returned from Rebecca’s house. He gave evidence that Bradley stayed in the shed for the whole time he was there on the second occasion, which was about half an hour.[31]
[31] TT 207.
The accused gave evidence that after he took the car from number 11 Moreshead Street he then drove to his aunt’s house in Ingle Farm and then to Rebecca Agius’ house at Salisbury East. When he arrived at Rebecca Agius’ house her mother and her two children were present. He said that Pauly Doolan arrived in Jax’s car and that Rebecca’s uncle was also in the car. He stayed inside the house and then Rebecca’s uncle went up to the police. He gave Pauly Doolan the car keys to the Mitsubishi. He then walked out the front and was arrested.
The accused gave evidence about the telephone calls from the Remand Centre.[32] He said that he recognised the voices of Rebecca Agius and Gail Agius as well as his grandmother Sheerla Goldsmith, Pauly Doolan and Oscar Wanganeen. He had all of those people except Pauly Doolan on his phone list. He said that his purpose in many of the phone calls was for Pauly, Dwayne and Tyrone to say that he was at their address on 8 November 2013.[33] He was feeling frustrated that no-one was attending to this. He wanted these people to go to the ‘cop shop’ or to see his lawyer to put a statement in and say that he had been introduced to the occupants of the house and he was at the house at that point. He said he did not want these people to lie and he made that clear.[34]
[32] P8 and MFI P9.
[33] TT 212.
[34] TT 213:20 – 215:27.
HER HONOUR
QWho was it that you wanted to go to see your lawyer.
ASonny and Nicole and Pauly at that time.
QSonny, Nicole and Pauly.
AYes.
QWere they the only people you wanted to go and see your lawyer.
AThey was the only people I wanted to see my lawyer and that, but I obviously explaining to Pauly ‘Tell Tyrone and that to make a statement to tell the truth and that’, but Pauly, Nicole and Sonny was the only people I wanted to do and see my lawyer.
QWho did you say; Dion
ADwayne. Them lot to go and see my lawyer to explain that I was at their house and address that night, and that they did introduce me to them and that was all, and for Tyrone and that to tell the truth, but whether – how they done it or not, that was up to them.
QWhat did you want Pauly to do with Tyrone.
ATo tell him to tell the truth, that I was at his house that night.
QWhat about Bradley, what did you want him to do with him.
AWith Bradley, to tell them I was at the premises that night at that time and to tell, like, the truth, and that was about it and that. Some of the phone calls and that was at the time I was angry and that and I might have said a few things that shouldn’t have been said and that at the time and that, but, you know, statements that I was getting at the time and that was lies, basically all lies, saying that I wasn’t at the address and that the night before the crime was committed when I was there and that.
QSo, apart from the fact that you wanted these people to say that you’d been at the house on the night before –
AYep.
Q– what else did you want them to say.
AWhat they said was up to them, basically what they said and that. I just wanted them to say I was at the house and that, and that I was present at the house that night and that, and what they said to the cops, whatever they wanted to say was up to them. I can’t force them to say what they want to say. To Pauly, Nicole and Sonny and that, what I explained to them is I wanted them to tell the truth and tell them that I was at their house, they picked me up from Rebecca’s and tooke me back there and we went back to Rebecca’s to pick up meth and what not and then went back and then I left to go home.
QWhy did you think it was important.
ABecause no-one didn’t believe me at that time that I was at that address and the only people I know can verify my story was the people that took me to the address.
QLeaving aside your friends, so Pauly, Nicole, Dwayne, the other people at the house, what did you think it was important that they say.
AThat I was at their house that night at that point. I didn’t want them to say that, you know – Pauly tell them to say what not, because I’m getting really wild and upset with them at the moment. I’m getting wild and upset they was lying that I’ve never been to the premises at all whatsoever and that’s what I was getting really upset about and emotional about at that time.
QSo how did you think you could fix that.
ATo tell Pauly that, you know, to tell them I was at their house and that, and to tell Dwayne to put a statement saying he was there at that time when I’ve arrived at their address.
QI’m just asking you about the people from the house.
AYep.
QYou said you wanted them to say that you were at the house.
AYes.
QOn the night before.
AYep.
QAnd that you’d spoken to Pauly.
AYep. What did you ask Pauly to do.
QTo ask them, you know, what they said to the police and that at the time, and whether they said that I was at the addressed that night. And then previous to me getting my statements and what not, I realised that they said that they didn’t know me or Pauly. So it was really, really confusing at the time.
The accused was asked about call 15 which is call number 2626815:[35]
[35] TT 219:14 – 221:33
QYou heard that passage.
AYes.
QThe transcript identifies the female voice we heard as a female. Did you recognise who that voice was.
AYes. Who was it.
AGayle
QWhat did you hope to achieve by speaking to Gayle.
ATo talk – like to speak to her to tell her to tell Pauly – to get her to write things down because I’ve been ringing her up constantly to talk to her and Pauly for Pauly to make a statement and for Pauly to tell people that I was at their address and to make –
HER HONOUR
QKeep going.
AAnd to make a statement, you know, because I do believe that as the time that the officers didn’t say that it was Charlie, that we believe it was Charlie until whenever they did find out, but I was hoping that they was going to say, yes, that I was at their house and they did realise it was me, but unfortunately that they did not say that they knew me.
XN
QYou were giving Gayle instructions to write down what you’ve just told her Honour.
AYes
QIn one of the conversations, and this is at p.61 line 30 of the transcript, you are saying that ‘Pauly took me there’ and that it was all right and you were there the night before.
AYes.
QIs that one of the important points you wanted to get across.
AYes, it was.
QYou’d never been to this place before – you’d only been there once and that was on the 14th. That was – sorry, that was on the 8th. I don’t want to confuse you. That was on 8 November, the day before.
AYes, it was.
QThat was the first time.
AYes.
QAnd you wanted them to say that you were there. That was what you were trying to achieve.
AYes.
QAnd had you asked Gayle to do this before.
AYes, I have.
QMany times.
AYes.
QThat’s the reason you asked her many times.
AYes, it was.
QWhat did you want her to do with it.
ATo get it down and give to Pauly and for him to say that I was there and that and for them – at that time hopefully that they were going to say that they knew me and that, but I believe- personally believe that they didn’t know it was me at the time when they went down the road to approach the police officers and say that their car has been stolen.
QYou keep on referring to a Tyson. That name hasn’t come up before. Have you meant somebody else.
AYes, I do.
QWho do you mean.
ATyrone.
QWhen you say ‘Tyson’ in the transcript or on the tape, you are referring to Tyrone.
AYes.
QOnce Gayle had been and seen Pauly, what did you hope that Pauly was going to do with this information that was written down.
AI was hoping that he was going to pass it on to him and explain to him –
QPass it on to who.
ATo Tyrone and Bradley, to explain that I did go there and that and at that time, like I said before, I did believe that they did not know that it was me as they approached the police officers.
QI’m sure her Honour understands that. But once that had been achieved, let’s assume that had been achieved, what had you then hoped to do with the document.
AI was hoping that, you know, once it got back in or wherever it had to go there –
QWhat did you mean by that.
ATo a cop shop, to a lawyer, or whatever it had to be done.
QWhy did you hold the belief that they didn’t know you.
ABecause at the time – like, because they don’t – from what I know they don’t, like, get into trouble and that, so I believe – because they have already approached the police and told them that someone has broken in or stolen their car that they might have been – possibly to believe that they were going to get into trouble if they were to say ‘Yeah, he was here that night and we do know him’.
The accused gave evidence that what he was trying to achieve was to get all these people to tell the truth as he understood it.
The accused was cross-examined. He was asked how it was they all came to go to Tyrone’s house on that day. The accused gave evidence that he rang Pauly that evening and Pauly came to Rebecca’s house to pick him up. Jax was driving the car. He was picked up at about 7.30pm[36] and they drove directly to Tyrone’s house. When they arrived Dwayne Wilson, Ethan Love and two other people were in the shed. He said that Bradley Bignell was not in the shed when they first arrived. It was put to him that Bradley Bignell was never in the shed that evening. The accused said that he was.[37] The accused said that he was playing the Xbox but did not do it for very long because it was confusing to him so he had about three or four cones of marijuana. He was not very sure how long he spent in the shed smoking marijuana but thought it was a short time, probably “two minutes, a minute”. He said that he spoke with Tyrone about cars and fixing them and Pauly offered him an alcoholic drink but that he did not drink it because he does not drink alcohol.
[36] TT 225.
[37] TT 226.
He was cross-examined about leaving the house to go back to Rebecca Aguis’ house. The accused accepted that he had first arrived at Tyrone’s house at about 7.30pm to 7.45pm and left for the final time at 8.50pm to be home for his curfew. He said that Rebecca rang him to say that she had a bit of “meth” and he decided to go to her house to get the “meth”. He said that at the time he did not really want the meth, it was Pauly and the others who wanted it and that was the reason he went there to get it. He said it would take him about 11 or 12 minutes to drive from Tyrone’s house to Rebecca’s house.[38] He agreed that it would take at least 10 minutes to get there and 10 minutes back. He said that he was at Rebecca’s house for about 3 to 5 minutes and then got in the car and went back to Tyrone’s house. It was put to him that Tyrone had never asked him to come around to the house for “a mix or a blaze”. The accused denied this and said that he had.
[38] TT 229.
The accused was asked what other cars were at the house on the night when they were there. He said that there was probably a car in the back garden and the only other car was the Magna that drove up when they arrived. The accused said that car wanted to park on the front lawn but could not get on there because of their car and he parked on the road.
The accused agreed that he had run off from the police because he did not want to go back to gaol. It was put to him that he did not go back to number 11 Moreshead Street on that morning to play the Xbox and he replied “I didn’t go in to play Xbox. I popped in - I said in my statement yesterday, my evidence, while I was standing on the corner, I thought I would take him up on that offer”.[39] He agreed that Tyrone did not give him permission to come into the house at 6 o’clock in the morning or permission to take the wallet or the keys from the house:[40]
[39] TT 236:4-6.
[40] TT 236:36 – 238:1
QWhat to you meant when you say that you went there to take Tyrone up on his offer.
AHe said I could pop in and that, drop in for a mix and that and whatnot, and at the time I thought, when I was standing on the corner, I’d take him up on the offer, and I went there, went into the shed at first and they didn’t come out, so I made my way inside.
QWhen you say ‘they didn’t come out’, who are you talking about.
ATyrone.
QWhy would he have come out into the shed.
ABecause that was what he said, come in the shed and that.
QAt 6 o’clock in the morning.
AWell, you know, my morning, my curfew is from 6 to 9 and my day will start at 5.30 in the morning. I didn’t realise that he wouldn’t be awake or asleep and I didn’t think he’d have a problem with me waking him up.
QBut you didn’t wake him up, did you.
AYeah, because at the time I told you earlier that cops were in the yard behind. I could see them, so I grabbed the keys and went out and jumped into the car.
QYou didn’t go to the house to take Tyrone up on an offer to have a blaze, did you.
AYes, I did.
QIs what you’re saying, that you were being chased by police.
AYeah.
QThat there was a prospect that they could arrest you –
AYep.
Q– and have you sent back to prison.
AYeah.
QYou’d run away from them.
AYep.
QAnd what you thought you’d do at that moment in time was to go around to Tyrone’s house.
AYep.
QSmoke some drugs with him.
AWell, not at that particular time. He said I could pop in for – you know, at that time, that I could pop in to do that, but at that time I thought I’d take him up on his offer saying I could pop around, so I popped around.
The accused was asked why, when he went around to number 11 Morehead Street in the morning, he did not knock on the front door. He said “because he invited me to go when I did go there to, say, the shed, the shed, because everyone when I was there was walking straight out the back into the shed, wasn’t really knocking on the front door”.[41] He said the back gate was open and that he walked up the driveway and that is why he went into the back garden rather than out the front. He agreed in cross-examination that he saw the Mitsubishi on the front lawn when he went into the house and thought that there was somebody in the house at that time.
[41] TT ??
It was put to him that he went into the house to steal items that would help him get away from the police. He said “not at that time”. He was asked what he meant by that expression. He said “I went in there to speak to Tyrone and that then I looked to my left to look out towards the sliding door and I’ve seen the officers and what not in the yard behind the house. I’ve seen the keys and the wallet on the table and I just picked the keys and the wallet up”. He said he did not try to wake up Tyrone to speak to him because at that time he just got chased by the police and he was freaking out a bit.[42]
[42] TT 241:11
It was suggested to him the reason he did not wake up anyone in the house was because they did not know him and it was further suggested to him that he did not sing out when he was in the house either because he did not want to alert anybody to his presence. The accused conceded that he did not sing out loud enough. He also conceded that he did not sing out loud enough for someone to have heard it if they were in the house. He said he realises now he probably should have.[43]
[43] TT 243
The accused was also cross-examined about taking off his bumbag and leaving it in the shed. He was cross-examined about the contradiction in his evidence that he had left the bumbag with the phone and his glasses in the shed. He went on to say that he was confused when he was answering his own lawyer’s questions and that was why he had made the mistake.
It was put to him that because he dropped his phone as he was being chased by the police that he had no way of getting in contact with anyone and so he had to steal items such as the ones he stole from number 11 to get away from the police. He agreed that if he had his phone he would have been able to ring somebody. He denied that he had entered the house to steal items to assist in his escape.
I asked him what was in the bumbag that was left in the shed. He gave evidence that it was a pair of scissors, screwdriver and a pair of gloves. He said he left those in the shed because he was planning to wake up Tyrone and go back into the shed. He then said that the reason that he ran from the police was that he had these things in his bumbag and he did not want the police to see them.[44]
[44] TT 246
The accused was cross-examined about the telephone calls that were made from the Adelaide Remand Centre. Initially he said that it was the people that he was with, Pauly, Sonny and Nicole that he was referring to as the people who needed to give statements to the police.[45] He denied that he was trying to get Pauly to go around and speak to the occupants of number 11 Moreshead Street.[46] In call number 2624788 the accused agreed that he was referring to Tyrone in that passage. During the course of his cross-examination the accused gave evidence that Tyrone has a nickname of ‘Toolsy’. This was the first time that he mentioned this nickname. In relation to the ‘fellas’, the accused agreed that it was Tyrone that he was referring to. He then went on to say that he wanted these people at the house to say that they knew Pauly and that was important because “my case is that I went around there with Pauly”.
[45] TT 251
[46] TT 254, 256, 258, 260, 262.
In due course, the accused conceded that the people that he wanted to put in a statement included Tyrone Taipari and Bradley Bignell.[47]
[47] TT 272, 273.
As the cross-examination continued and the calls were put to the accused he agreed that in some of the calls it was Tyrone Taipari and Bradley Bignell who were being discussed:[48]
[48] TT 286:29 – 287:7; 287:28 – 288:7; 288:30 – 290:03.
QWas that Gayle Agius on the phone.
AYes.
QYou said to Gayle ‘Ring my lawyer up later on so when you go and see Pauly and go around there ring my lawyer up and book a time to go and take them in there. All right because I want it done by the fucking book because I don’t want these cocksuckers thinking they that I’m intimidating them when fucking Pauly and fucking Sonny and Nicole took me there, that their fucking friends’ house you know what I mean like fucking you know they do that and then yeah all right please.’ I start with the first part of what you said there ‘Ring my lawyer up later on so when you go and see Pauly and go around there, ring my lawyer up and book a time to go and take them in there’. Who were you talking about taking to your lawyer.
AI don’t know.
…..
HER HONOUR
QCan you listen carefully please to this, Mr Lawrie.
PORTION OF CALL 2625672 FROM LINE 25 TO LINE 30 PLAYED
XXN
QWere you talking about Tyrone and Bradley in that telephone call there, that part of the telephone call.
AYes.
QWas what you were saying that you wanted Gayle ring to your lawyer up later on.
AYes.
QAnd that when Gayle went to see Pauly, to go around to No.11 to ring your lawyer up to book a time to take Bradley and Tyrone in there. Do you agree with that.
AYes.
QBecause you wanted Bradley and Tyrone taken in there to give a statement that they knew you and that you had permission to be at their house.
AYes.
…..
QWas that Gayle Agius that you were speaking to.
AYes.
QAnd do you accept that in that portion of the call you’ve listened to you are talking about the charges you are here in relation to today.
AYep.
QYou said to Gayle at p.51 line 31 ‘So right this this this is what needs to happen right is when you go and see Pauly and then you see them’, the female said ‘Yep’, you said ‘Well then you know they’re going to do it, ring my lawyer up’ and the woman said ‘Yep’ and you said “Straightaway and try to book an appointment to come in that day’. The woman said – Gayle said “yep and see her’ and you said “Yeah, yeah instead of going to the fucking dooya station man’. In that passage I’ve just read out to you you were talking about what needed to happen when Pauly went around to speak to Tyrone and Bradley, weren’t you.
AYep.
QAnd what the plan was was this – I’m going to break it down for you: when Pauly went there and became aware that they were going to give a statement or where prepared to give a statement saying that they knew you and you had permission to be there the plan was for your lawyer to be rung up; do you agree with that.
AYep.
QFor your lawyer to be rung up straightaway so an appointment could be booked with your lawyer to have Tyrone and Bradley come in that same day.
OBJECTION: MR REDFORD OBJECTS
MR REDFORD: It hasn’t been established it’s just Tyrone and Bradley.
HER HONOUR: There was an answer to a question about five questions ago where he was asked who was this conversation about and he agreed it said it was about Tyrone and Bradley so it has been established. That objection is overruled.
XXN
QThe plan was to book an appointment straightaway, take them in to see your lawyer rather than taking them to the police station. Do you accept that.
AYep.
QAnd this was at a stage where you had had statements in prison from Bradley.
AYep.
QAnd from Tyrone.
AYep.
QAnd it was clear from Bradley’s statement that he was saying he had never met you before.
AYep.
During the course of the cross-examination of the accused some material became available to the prosecution that was disclosed to the defence. I was made aware of the content in general terms. I allowed defence counsel to speak to the accused about this material in relation to whether there was to be an objection to this material being used and ultimately tendered by the prosecution. There was then an application by Mr Redford for full disclosure of surveillance logs that were in the possession of SAPOL. SAPOL would only provide a redacted copy and I was asked to abridge time for the issue of a subpoena for the material. I abridged time for the subpoena to be issued and the material returned on the following day. When we resumed the following day the material that was returned in response to the subpoena was the redacted material. I required the police to attend to explain why they had not complied with the subpoena. Ms Ferris then appeared for SAPOL and explained the situation. Counsel were content with her explanation and the material that they have been provided with. Mr Wilson then continued with his cross-examination. There was no objection raised by the defence to the use of the fresh material by the prosecution.
Mr Wilson put to the accused that there was material that established that the accused was not at the home of the complainants at 8.09pm on 8 November 2013 but was walking towards his house with another man. The accused agreed that indeed that had happened. He said he was with “Pauly” (Doolan). He was asked why he had not mentioned this trip back to his own house in Warramunga Street at about this time in his evidence to this point. His response was “because it was only for a short period of time”.[49]
[49] TT 335.
The defence called Pauly Dion Doolan. He said that he has a cousin by the name of Charlie Lawrie. He knows Tyrone Taipari and has known him for a couple of years. He knows Dwayne Wilson because he is his first cousin. He also knows Bradley Bignell because they went to the same high school. He gave evidence that on 8 November 2013 he was out with his friends Jackson, Sonny Sumner and his sister Nicole. They went to Tyrone’s house at about 7.45pm. They drove in Jackson’s car. Sonny, Nicole, Charlie Lawrie and he were in the car. When they arrived at Tyrone’s house they went to the back shed through the back gate as they had on other occasions. When they got to the shed there were about seven or eight people there including his cousin Dwayne, Ethan, Johnboy, Troy, Craig and one of the other mates that he did not really know. He said that Bradley Bignell did not come into the shed at all on that night.
After they had arrived at Tyrone’s house they left with Jackson driving and went to Becky’s (Rebecca Agius) house to pick up some ‘speed’ and then returned to the shed. The same people were still at the shed. Tyrone got a glass of water and the accused mixed up the methylamphetamine. A couple of other people were smoking it and Mr Doolan smoked a bit as well. Mr Doolan gave evidence that the accused asked Tyrone if it was alright to use the methylamphetamine in his shed and Tyrone said “yeah”.[50] He said that whilst they were in the shed Tyrone said “you are always welcome here to come over and sit back with me”. Mr Doolan said that they had left Tyrone’s house to go to Rebecca’s house about twenty minutes after they arrived. Later in the evening they went for a walk to the accused’s house so that he could get a change of clothes, being a pair of shorts, and the accused told his girlfriend he would be back in a minute. After that they went back to Torsi’s house, “sat down for like probably 20 minutes, half an hour, then walked back to his house just before 9”[51].
[50] TT 342.
[51] TT 344:7-9.
The accused gave evidence that when he finally left Torsi’s house that night he got a lift with a person called Jackson McGrady.[52] The following morning he went to Rebecca Agius’ house. He was with the person Jackson at that time, in Jackson’s car. The police came into the front yard and they were calling out for the accused and the accused walked out the front to meet them.
[52] TT 345.
Mr Doolan gave evidence that he spoke to the accused from Gail Agius’ mobile phone whilst the accused was in custody. The accused asked him to go to Tyrone’s house.
Mr Doolan was cross-examined. A number of inconsistencies in his evidence were put to him. Mr Doolan was cross-examined about the chronology of events on that night. He said that the first time he went to pick up the accused from Rebecca Agius’ house was about 7.30pm on 8 November 2013. They then went to Torsi’s house. He said Torsi is the nickname for Tyrone Taipari. At about 8.10pm he walked from Tyrone’s house to the accused’s house so that the accused could get a change of clothes and then went back to Tyrone’s house. He thought that he left the accused’s house to walk back to Tyrone’s house at about 8.30pm, about a 4-5 minute walk. He said they remained there until he went back to the accused’s house so that the accused was home in time for his curfew at 9pm.
He said that the trip back to Rebecca Agius’ house to collect the methylamphetamine had occurred between the time that they first arrived at Tyrone’s house at about 7.45pm and when they walked back to the accused’s house at 8.10.
A number of the phone calls from Remand Centre were put to Mr Doolan. It was suggested to him that the accused was asking him to speak with Bradley Bignell in relation to his statement. Mr Doolan maintained that he was to speak to Tyrone, not to Bradley, and that the nature of the conversation was to ensure that Tyrone confirmed that the accused had been at the house the night before.
Mr Doolan was also cross-examined in relation to a number of prior offences that he had committed. These commenced with a trespassing for which he was dealt with as a youth in 2004, a common assault in 2006, an illegal use in 2007, and a number of offences of dishonesty and illegal use in 2008. In 2013 he was dealt with in the Holden Hill Magistrate’s Court of an offence of serious criminal trespass in a place of residence and theft. Despite all these offences Mr Doolan maintained that he is an honest person. He denied that he had come to court and lied to the court in an attempt to assist his cousin, the accused. He denied that he had got his head together with the accused to tell the same story.
Mr Doolan was re-examined. In re-examination he confirmed that on 8 November 2013 he had picked up the accused from Rebecca Agius’ house and driven to Tyrone’s house. He left Tyrone’s house and went back to Rebecca’s house and then returned to Tyrone’s house where the accused injected himself with crystal meth. They then went to the accused’s house before returning then to Tyrone’s house and then going back to the accused’s house.
That completed the evidence for the defence. At that stage two further statements were tendered with the consent of the defence. These were the statements of Senior Constable Young[53] and Senior Constable Burner[54]. In addition to this, a disc was tendered[55]. That disc was played to the court and appears to show the accused and another person walking along a street and into a driveway, presumably his driveway at 24 Warramunga Court, Greenacres.
[53] P 13.
[54] P 14.
[55] P 15.
Prosecution address
Mr Wilson submitted that the key issues in the trial came down to whether I accepted the evidence of Bradley Bignell, Tyrone Taipari and Colin Taipari, that they did not give the accused permission to enter their home at 11 Moreshead Street, Greenacres on the morning of 9 November 2013. He submitted that I should accept their evidence beyond reasonable doubt and reject the evidence of the accused and Mr Doolan.
It was submitted that even if I accepted the evidence of the accused and Mr Doolan, that the accused had attended at number 11 Moreshead Street, Greenacres on the evening of 8 November and had been introduced to Tyrone Taipari and Bradley Bignell, and that it was a reasonable possibility that Tyrone Taipari extended an invitation to the accused to come around to the house at some later stage to consume drugs and play the Xbox, that these factors would not combine to absolve the accused of guilt in relation to either counts 1 or 4 in the Information. It was submitted that the accused had entered the house at number 11 Moreshead Street on the morning of 9 November 2013 and there could be no doubt in relation to that fact. He submitted that at the time the accused entered the premises he was being pursued by the police and that his behaviour when he did attend the premises was completely inconsistent with a person having been given permission to enter the premises for any other purpose in any event. It was submitted that the accused’s explanation for why he entered the house was so utterly unbelievable that it ought to be rejected:[56]
QWhat do you mean when you say that you went there to take Tyrone up on his offer.
AHe said I could pop in and that, drop in for a mix and that and whatnot, and at the time I thought, when I was standing on the corner, I’d take him up on the offer, and I went there, went into the shed at first and they didn’t come out, so I made my way inside.
[56] TT 236:36 – 237:4.
It was submitted that the accused’s actions at number 11 on the morning of 9 November, in particular his failure to make reasonable attempts to rouse any of the occupants in the house or alert them to his presence by either calling out loudly or speaking to them, and his actions after he entered the premises that being to take the wallet, the car keys and ultimately the car on the front lawn, point to his unlawful entry into the house. It was submitted even if the accused had permission to enter for a limited purpose, as he said in his evidence, he entered for a purpose alien to that permission and as such was a trespasser. Even on the accused’s version, there was no suggestion that he was given permission to enter into the house to commit any offences.
In relation to count 4 on the Information, Mr Wilson submitted that even on the accused’s evidence, the extent of his contact with Mr Bignell on the night prior to the alleged offending was that he was introduced to him but did not speak to him and that the inference to be drawn from the calls was that the accused was very keen to ensure that Mr Bignell gave a statement to the police that was inconsistent with the one that had been provided by him. In the statement that Mr Bignell had provided he said that he did not know the accused, that the accused had no permission to be at number 11 Moreshead Street, Greenacres and it was his wallet, keys and vehicle that had been taken.
Mr Wilson submitted that the accused had accepted that he wanted Mr Doolan to speak to anyone who was living at number 11 Moreshead Street to get them to say that they knew the accused and that he had permission to be there and he wanted that to happen because he thought the charges would not proceed against him if that was so. Mr Wilson submitted that the inferences to be drawn from the calls, in particular call number 11, and the concessions made by the accused in relation to it, were proof of the fact that he had intended to pervert the course of justice as even on the accused’s version there could have been no suggestion that Bradley Bignell had ever given him permission to attend at number 11 Moreshead Street in the way that he did on the morning of 9 November 2013. That being so, an attempt to get Mr Bignell to say that meant that he knew any statement would be false.
Mr Wilson submitted that Bradley Bignell was an honest and reliable witness and that I should find that he had left number 11 Moreshead Street between 4.30pm-5pm on 8 November 2013 and drove to his friend’s house at Enfield where he remained until he returned at 11pm. He then parked and locked the Magna. When he came home Tyrone Taipari was not home and Colin Taipari was asleep. Mr Bignell denied ever having met the accused at any stage.
In relation to Colin Taipari, Mr Wilson submitted that he presented as an honest witness who was doing his best to recall events of a year ago. He said that he did not know Mr Doolan, Sonny Sumner, Nicole or the man Jax. Mr Wilson submitted that there were inconsistencies between the evidence of Colin Taipari and Bradley Bignell, in particular that Colin Taipari had said that Bradley Bignell was home on the evening of 8 November 2013 and that the boys had had some friends around in the back shed on that night. Mr Wilson submitted that much of Mr Taipari’s evidence was given by reference to what he usually does rather than a specific memory of what he did on this particular evening. An example of that was his evidence in relation to what time he normally gets up in the morning and goes to work. Mr Wilson submitted that although Mr Colin Taipari had tried his best to recall the events of 8 November 2013, his recollection about that evening may be mistaken, at least in relation to Mr Bignell’s presence at the house and that I should prefer Mr Bignell’s evidence on that topic. Notwithstanding this, he submitted that I should find that Colin Taipari had never met the accused and had not given the accused permission to be in the house on the morning of 9 November 2013.
In relation to Tyrone Taipari, Mr Wilson submitted that he was a witness who appeared to have very little memory in relation to the events in the evening of 8 November last year and this may be attributable to his consumption of cannabis and about a bottle and a half of bourbon. It was submitted that I could accept the evidence of Tyrone Taipari, that he had no memory of Mr Bignell being in the shed on that afternoon or evening and that he does not know the accused, has not seen him before, and did not give him permission to come to the house at number 11 as he pleased and certainly did not give him permission to enter the house at 6 o’clock in the morning. He said that the concessions made by Tyrone Taipari in his evidence was such that it is clear that he was an honest witness who was doing his best to provide a truthful account however limited his memory was.
In respect of the accused’s evidence, Mr Wilson submitted that there were a number of aspects of his evidence that were not put to the other witnesses, including the fact that there was said to have been a telephone call from Mr Doolan to the occupants of number 11 Moreshead Street on the morning of 9 November and that during this telephone call Mr Doolan had told them that it was Charlie Lawrie who took the car and that Mr Bignell’s wallet was under the driver’s seat. It was also never put to them that the witness Tyrone Taipari had a nickname of Torsy and whether a bumbag had been left behind in their shed that was then returned to Mr Doolan.
It was submitted to me that the accused’s position in relation to the chronology of the evening had changed significantly after the disclosure of the surveillance material during the course of cross-examination and that until that time the accused did not given evidence that he had in fact returned to his own house at about 8.09pm on 8 November. It was not until after he was confronted with this that he recalled having done so and then explained how it was that it occurred.
The prosecutor submitted to me that there were a number of aspects of the accused’s evidence that should cause me concern as to its reliability and credibility. This includes his explanation for taking the wallet,[57] his denial that he took the $30.00 from the wallet, the inconsistencies in relation to the content of the bumbag[58], his assertion that he was not sure whether Tyrone heard him asking about injecting methylamphetamine because he was intoxicated when considered with his evidence that he would not know if somebody is intoxicated because he does not drink and that when he arrived at number 11 Moreshead on the morning of 9 November he initially went into the shed because he thought that someone would come out to him.
[57] TT 222-223.
[58] TT 198 and 246.
The prosecutor also submitted the accused’s attempts in the telephone calls, in particular call number 15, to get Bradley Bignell to say that he had permission to borrow the Magna, was in fact untruthful. The accused pleaded guilty to this charge and admitted in cross-examination that he did not have permission to take the car. In call number 11, when the accused talks about “terrorising them fuckers”, the accused said in evidence he was referring to Pauly Doolan, Sonny Sumner and Nicole when he was in fact speaking with Pauly Doolan at that time. Also, the accused’s assertion that when he refers to ‘fellas’ he may in fact mean ‘fella’ singularly or ‘fellas’ plural, it was submitted, is nonsensical.
Mr Wilson submitted that I should approach Mr Doolan’s evidence with caution. He is a man with a history of dishonesty offences and it was submitted, as the accused’s cousin, had a motive to lie. It was submitted that Mr Doolan’s account was inconsistent with the accused’s evidence but on some matters mirrored it so closely that it was unlikely the two of them had not got their heads together. He said it was of significance that Mr Doolan in fact supported the Crown case that Bradley Bignell was not in the shed on the evening of 8 November and that he at least had never seen Mr Bignell sitting in the shed. Mr Wilson submitted that Mr Doolan was untruthful in relation to his explanations for the content of the telephone call and that he did not support the accused in relation to the return of the bumbag, the return of the keys and on other matters. It was suggested that Mr Doolan’s evidence did not support the accused’s account in that he had called Tyrone Taipari and Bradley Bignell from Rebecca Agius’ house on the morning of 9 November. Mr Wilson submitted there was a clear inference that Mr Doolan and the accused had got their heads together to craft a story that would see the accused acquitted in this matter. In this regard, he pointed to Mr Doolan’s evidence of returning to the accused’s house at 8.10pm on 8 November that gives rise to a strong inference that the accused had managed to communicate the recent disclosure of the surveillance evidence to Mr Doolan. This is in particular so when it is submitted by his own counsel that I should be sceptical about the times that were referred to by the witnesses.
Defence address
Mr Redford addressed on behalf of the accused. He commenced by reminding me of the important topics of presumption of innocence, burden of proof and the standard of proof. He also dealt with some other legal principles all of which I have taken into account. He addressed me on Stack v The State of Western Australia[59], that I referred to earlier. He submitted that I should take into account the fact that both the accused and Mr Doolan being aboriginal may not use English words in the standard way that may otherwise be understood. He suggested that eye contact was an issue. I pause to note that I did not observe that there was any lack of eye contact between the accused and Mr Doolan during the course of their evidence. Mr Redford himself observed that there had been no long silences in relation to any of the answers given by either of the witnesses. He suggested that I should not give weight to any leading questions that have been asked in cross-examination where it appeared that the accused may have simply answered them in an effort to agree with the cross-examiner rather than because he did in fact agree with them. Mr Redford also suggested to me that the concept of time and particular times may have been difficult for the accused and Mr Doolan. Mr Redford addressed me on the denial by the accused that he had removed $30.00 from the wallet and suggested that I could make findings that that was so notwithstanding his guilty plea.
[59] [2004] WASCA 300.
In relation to count 1, the aggravated serious criminal trespass in a place of residence, Mr Redford said that the circumstance of aggravation, that is that the accused knew or was reckless as to the presence of individuals in the house was not seriously disputed. Indeed, this element of the offence had been admitted by his client. Rather, Mr Redford suggested that the main area of dispute was that it had not been proven beyond reasonable doubt that the accused entered the premises as a trespasser. Mr Redford addressed me on Barker’s[60] Case. He submitted that the accused had general permission to enter into the premises and believed that he was able to do so. If this is so then he has not entered the premises unlawfully. Mr Redford submitted that if he then grabbed the keys and the wallet, provided he does not remain on the premises, then he should not be convicted of the offence.[61]
[60] Barker v R (1983) 153 CLR 338.
[61] TT 400.
Mr Redford then moved on to the evidence in this matter. He submitted to me that I should not find that the accused did not know and had not met Tyrone Taipari simply because he did not know his name as was evident from the telephone intercepts. He submitted that there was ample evidence to show that the accused had in fact been at the premises on 8 November 2013. He said that this evidence was based on the fact that his client knew the set up of the shed and had a familiarity with the way things occurred in the shed. Mr Redford submitted that the evidence given by Mr Doolan in relation to a conversation with Tyrone Taipari was corroborated by Tyrone Taipari who said that there had been an occasion when he had spoken to Mr Doolan about this case even though Mr Taipari was not able to give much information in relation to such conversation. He said that Mr Taipari conceded that the accused could have been at the premises on 8 November, 2013. Due to Mr Taipari’s condition in relation to alcohol and drugs on that night it could not be excluded that he had not given permission for Mr Lawrie to go into the house. Mr Redford submitted that even though it may not be commonly understood by others that saying words to the effect “you’re welcome here anytime for a blaze” to the accused meant that he could come around at any time of the day or night, that the invitation has to be seen in light of the environment and the culture that applied to these people. Mr Redford submitted that it could not be excluded beyond reasonable doubt that his client had an honest and reasonable belief that he could go around to the house at any time and that was what he was doing when he entered on the morning of 9 November 2013. Mr Redford relied upon the passage at page 92 lines 13-29:[62]
[62] TT 91:38 – 92:21.
QOne of the people you mentioned – and in fact before I put it to you you’d mentioned it in the evidence to her Honour and also to my friend – is Johnboy. Johnboy has been a mate of yours for quite some time, hasn’t he.
AYeah.
QAbout as long as Dwayne.
ANo, not that long.
QCan you put a time on it.
AFour, five years, maybe yeah, four, five.
QFour, five years. He was, as you’ve indicated, he could well have been one of the people that were drinking that night on the 8th in the shed.
AYes.
QHe’d have had your permission, I presume, to sort of come and go because he was a mate of yours, isn’t that right.
AYeah.
QWould he have had your permission to sort of go into the house and get a glass of water.
AYes.
QNo problem with that at all.
ANo problem with that at all.
Mr Redford had then turned to count 4 on the Information. He did not take issue with the elements of the offence as had been set out by the prosecutor. He submitted that it is legitimate for a person to seek to persuade a witness, with reasoned argument such as the provision of information, to tell the truth. The second proposition was that it is the use of a threat that causes an accused to cross the line and cited Meissner v R (1995) 184 CLR 132. In particular, the passage in the joint judgment at page 142:
If the conduct of the alleged offender is no more than a threat to do what he might lawfully do in order to secure a legitimate end we are unable to detect conduct which has a tendency to convert the course of justice.
A submission was made that if the accused had a genuine belief that what he was asking was no more than for the truth to be captured in the statement then his conduct would not be accompanied by an intent that the course of justice be perverted. If that were so, then the Crown would not have proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Mr Redford submitted that there are a number of indications from the telephone calls that he intended that the statements be legitimate. This included him saying on a number of occasions that he was telling the truth and that he wanted others to tell the truth and the fact that he wanted his lawyer involved in relation to the statements indicated that he was not attempting to pervert the course of justice but rather seeking to elicit the truth from these individuals and in particular from Bradley Bignell.
Mr Redford also submitted that there were a number of clues in which there was an element of sounding off rather than an attempt to pervert the course of justice. Mr Redford submitted that there was a general consistency in relation to the account of the accused throughout the case and throughout the telephone intercept.
Mr Redford submitted that I should be slow to act upon any admissions that had been made during cross-examination as the accused was at that stage tired, and simply agreeing with what was put to him and saying ‘yes’ to everything including leading questions that were not requiring of any positive response. He submitted to me that the accounts given by Mr Doolan and his client had some similarities such as you would expect in a case such as this but in other aspects they were different. He submitted that that is entirely consistent with people whose memories may be drug affected and both Mr Doolan and the accused had consumed drugs on this particular night. He submitted that there was an element of truth in relation to both what Mr Doolan and his client were saying.
In relation to the chronology of the evening of 8 November 2013, Mr Redford conceded that there were difficulties in relation to rationalising the movements of his client on that night with the times that had been attributed to particular activities. He suggested that these difficulties may reflect on the credibility of his client and Mr Doolan but that it was important to bear in mind that there was a real possibility that they were unreliable in relation to times simply because of the ingestion of drugs or alcohol and the fact that they may be people for whom it is not generally important or significant. Mr Redford submitted that I should treat with some caution the times that were given by people other than the police times upon which I could rely with some certainty.
Mr Redford concluded by suggesting that there is a reasonable possibility that his client had been at the premises on the evening of 8 November 2013. The evidence in relation to the description of the shed where different individuals were in the motor vehicle, the general comings and goings and the existence of the footage that was tendered showing his client and another person returning to his own home at about 8.09pm on that day supports this. Mr Redford submitted that the Crown had not proven its case beyond reasonable doubt on counts 1 and 4.
The law relating to the charged offences
In order to prove count 1 on the Information, that is, aggravated serious criminal trespass in a place of residence, the Crown must prove that the accused entered or remained in the place of residence. In this particular case this is not in dispute. The accused admits that he entered the premises.
The second element that the Crown must prove is that the accused entered the premises without the consent of the owner. There is evidence in this case from all occupiers of the premises, Bradley Bignell, Tyrone Taipari and Colin Taipari that they did not consent to the accused entering the premises at about 6am on 9 November 2013. The concessions made by Tyrone Taipari that he had no recollection as to whether or not the accused had been to his house on the evening of 8 November 2013 and therefore conceded that he may have been there, did not extend to giving consent to the accused to enter upon his premises on that morning. I do not accept the evidence of the accused that he was told by Tyrone Taipari that he could come around whenever he wanted or that he could ‘pop in’ whenever he wanted and I do not find that there is even a reasonable possibility that Tyrone Taipari gave consent to the accused to enter the home. If the accused then entered the home without the consent of the occupiers, he did so as a trespasser.
It is incumbent upon the Crown to prove in this case that the accused knew that he was a trespasser or was recklessly indifferent as to whether he was a trespasser. In R v Bennett[63], the former Chief Justice referred to this principle in the following terms:
It is consistent with principle to treat s 170(1) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) as required proof that the person charged knew that he or she was a trespasser, or was recklessly indifferent as to whether he or she was a trespasser. The section creates a serious criminal offence. Parliament should not be taken to have intended to punish merely unknowing or careless conduct that amounts to a trespass at law. The law of trespass is complex in some respects. Requiring proof that the person charged knew that a trespass was occurring, or was reckless as to that, will help ensure that the application of the section is appropriate. As well, High Court authority dealing with a somewhat similar provision indicates that the state of mind of the accused should be treated as an element of the offence: Barker v The Queen (1983) 153 CLR 338 at 344, 348, 361, 365-356.
[63] (2004) 88 SASR 6 at para 28.
In this case, the accused having claimed that he was not a trespasser because he thought he had the consent of at least one of the occupiers of the premises to enter the premises, it is incumbent upon the Crown to disprove this state of mind. I will come to that question in my findings of fact of in respect of this question.
A further element of the offence is that when the accused entered or remained upon the premises as a trespasser he had an intent to commit a criminal offence, namely a theft. The accused did of course commit the act of theft whilst on the premises. The question is whether he had that intent at the time he entered or, whether he remained on the premises as a trespasser and formed that intent.
This offence is aggravated by the knowledge that the accused had that the premises was lawfully occupied at that time. He does not take issue with the fact that they were lawfully occupied at that time and that he knew of the presence of the occupiers or was recklessly indifferent as to their presence.
In respect of count 4, attempting to pervert the course of justice, there are two elements to this offence both of which must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. The first that must be proved is that the accused engaged in conduct that had a tendency to pervert the course of justice. The second is that he had the intention of perverting the course of justice. Attempting to pervert the course of justice is a substantive offence, whether or not the conduct succeeded in perverting the course of justice is irrelevant. It is the tendency of the conduct that is to be decisive.[64] The conduct alleged is that the accused engaged in seeking to persuade others to convince Bradley Bignell to give a statement that included that he, the accused, had permission to be on the premises on the morning of 9 November 2013 and that he had been on the premises on 8 November 2013 with the knowledge and the consent of at least one of the occupiers. This, it is said, has a tendency to pervert the course of justice as it is untrue and has a tendency to pervert the course of justice by the presentation of this material in the course of proceedings. The Crown case is that there was an intention on the part of the accused to pervert the course of justice in this way and that this is demonstrated by his assertion on a number of occasions that if this material was presented he would then be free of these charges and released from custody.
[64] Meissner v R (1995) 184 CLR 132 at 140.
The defence position in relation to this is that the accused did not engage in conduct that would pervert the course of justice or had a tendency to do so because he was merely soliciting the truth from Bradley Bignell and that truth could not have perverted the course of justice nor did he have the intent that it would do so. If that is so then that provides a complete defence in relation to this charge.
Assessment of witnesses
I accept that Bradley Bignell, Tyrone Taipari and Colin Taipari were doing their best to give honest, credible and reliable evidence. Bradley Bignell in particular was an impressive witness. He gave his evidence in a straight forward manner; I could not detect any embellishment or exaggeration on his part. I accept that Colin Taipari was also a witness who was doing his best to give evidence that was truthful and accurate. I do, however, find that his evidence was not accurate in some respects. I do not think this was a deliberate attempt by him to mislead me in relation to it. It was clear that Colin Taipari was a nervous witness who had been considerably shaken by the events that occurred at his house on 9 November 2013. I find that in respect of whether or not he consented to the accused being on his premises, that he did not and had not given such consent in any way, shape or form. There was in fact no suggestion by the accused that he had done so either.
In relation to the witness Tyrone Taipari, his evidence was less impressive. I do not think he attempted to mislead or to exaggerate any part of his evidence. However, his lack of memory in relation to the events on 8 November 2013 could no doubt be attributed to his ingestion of a significant amount of alcohol and cannabis on that particular night. His memory is clearly defective in relation to a number of matters. However, in respect of whether or not he gave consent to the accused to enter into the home in the way that was suggested by the accused, I have no doubt that he did not give consent. Any finding contrary to this would be inexplicable given his evidence in relation to those that are permitted to come to his house and what they do and what he would expect them to do even with his consent to enter the house.
I found the accused and Mr Doolan to be unimpressive witnesses. The accused’s explanation in relation to the events of 8 November 2013 and 9 November 2013 was unconvincing and unsatisfactory. Even bearing in mind the matters raised in Stack v The State of Western Australia[65] to which I referred to earlier, his demeanour was poor. I have borne in mind the dangers inherent in drawing conclusions from observations of demeanour[66]. In short, I found the accused to be an untrustworthy witness.
[65] [2004] WASCA 300.
[66] The State Rail Authority of NSW v Earthline Constructions P/L(in liq) (1993) 72 ALJR 306.
In relation to Mr Doolan, I found his evidence to be unconvincing and unimpressive. It was clear to me that he and the accused had colluded in relation to aspects of the evidence that were given. It is not clear exactly how they had the opportunity to do that. However, even bearing in mind the evidence that was before me from the telephone conversations, it is clear that the accused has and does try to manipulate people to give a version of events or provide information contrary to the truth.
I reject the accounts that have been given by the accused and to the extent necessary by Pauly Doolan. Their versions of events for this night are unable to be reconciled in relation to the timing of events as they said they occurred. The accused clearly changed his version when confronted with the surveillance material and provided no satisfactory explanation for it. The accused told untruths during the course of his evidence and did so intentionally.
Mr Doolan’s evidence was heavily influenced by what he had heard from the accused. I find that the two of them colluded to give a false account to this court in relation to the events of 8 November, 2013 in particular in relation to the length of time they spent at the home of the complainants and what they did there on that night. I regard both of them as unreliable, unimpressive witnesses whose evidence should be disbelieved.
Findings of fact
1. Bradley Bignell left the house at 11 Moreshead Street, Greenacres late on the afternoon of 8 November 2013 and returned to the home at about 11pm on 8 November 2013. He has not met the accused or spoken to the accused at any stage. He did not give the accused permission to remove his wallet or his car keys from within the house and he did not give him permission to drive his motor vehicle. He did not consent to the accused coming into his home on the morning of 9 November 2013.
2. It is possible that the accused was at 11 Moreshead Street, Greenacres for a short time on the evening on 8 November 2013. It is possible that he was introduced to Tyrone Taipari on that occasion.
3. Tyrone Taipari did not give permission or consent to the accused entering his home on the morning of 9 November 2013.
4. Colin Taipari was at his home on the evening of 8 November 2013. He did not meet or speak with the accused on that evening. He did not give the accused permission to enter his home nor did he consent to him entering into his home on the morning of 9 November 2013.
5. The accused knew that he did not have permission to enter into the home at 11 Moreshead Street, Greenacres on the morning of 9 November 2013. He entered the home at the time he was escaping from the police. He entered the home as a trespasser. He may not have had an intention to steal as he entered the home but once within the home formed that intention to steal and then stole the wallet and the keys from the table and thereafter used the motor vehicle on the front lawn. I make this finding for the following reasons:
(a)I do not accept the assertion by the accused that Tyrone Taipari said that he could come to the house whenever he wanted for ‘blaze’. I find that this is not reasonably possibly true. Even if these words were said to him they could not give rise to any belief that he could enter this home at that time whilst he was on the run from the police;
(b)I have no doubt that the accused took refuge in the shed, initially as he said and that he removed the bumbag that had the implements for housebreaking within them because he did not want the police to locate those items on him;
(c)That he then entered the house and at the time he did that he was looking for items that would assist him to get away from the police. He intended to steal those items. That he saw the police in the adjoining yard and when he did so he determined that he would take the keys and wallet from the table.
6. I find that after the accused was remanded in custody that he commenced trying to entice individuals to influence the evidence that the occupants of at 11 Moreshead Street, Greenacres would give. The evidence in relation to this is to be found commencing in the first telephone call that was made by him from the Remand Centre on 15 November 2013 to Rebecca Agius where he is suggesting that there are certain things that need to be said and he had already told her to write them down. I draw the inference from, in particular, call 11 that Mr Lawrie had by that stage achieved his end of getting Pauly Doolan to speak with one or more of the occupants, probably Tyrone Taipari, in relation to his evidence. I draw this inference from what Pauly Doolan says in the call of having gone to see ‘that fella’ being a reference to Tyrone Taipari. That entire conversation is about the occupants of number 11. It is plain that the intent of Mr Lawrie is that one or more of them who had provided statements at that time, and that was Bradley Bignell and Tyrone Taipari, would be influenced to change the statements that they had given to say that they knew the accused and that he had permission to be at their house. This is particularly so from phone call number 15 where Mr Lawrie is apparently dictating to a female what needs to be said by the witnesses. The reference in call 15[67], to the car and to permission to borrow the car was a clear indicator that the accused intended that Mr Bignell give a false statement so that the charge of illegal use could not be sustained. That statement in particular is directed at Bradley Bignell, as are many others contained in the telephone records.
7. I am satisfied that the accused once in custody attempted to pervert the course of justice by influencing the evidence that could be presented against him in a court. I am satisfied that he utilised intermediaries including Gail Agius and Pauly Doolan in an attempt to get Bradley Bignell to give a statement that included that the accused had his consent to be on the premises and that he knew the accused. Both of those assertions would have been false and misleading and would have a tendency to pervert the course of justice. I am satisfied that the accused intended that outcome.
[67] MFI P9 p63 l44-46.
I find each of the elements of counts 1 and 4 proven beyond reasonable doubt. I therefore find the accused guilty of count 1, aggravated serious criminal trespass in a place of residence and count 4, attempting to pervert the course of justice.
0
4
1