R v Le Clair - [2016] ACTSC 79

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Le Clair
Citation:	[2016] ACTSC 79
Hearing Dates:	9 February, 10 February 2016
DecisionDate:	27 April 2016
Before:	Burns J
Decision:	See [25] –[26]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – Particular Offences – offences against the person – unlawful confinement – co-offenders – disputed facts hearing – where one offender disputed the extent of his involvement in the offence.
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Michael Aaron Le Clair (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel Mr M Fernandez (Crown) Mr A Doig (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Legal Aid ACT (Offender)
File Number:	SCC 170 of 2014

BURNS J:

The offender, Michael Aaron Le Clair, has entered pleas of guilty to one charge of unlawfully confining Toby Leatham (the complainant) on or about 28 December 2013, and one charge of trafficking in a trafficable quantity of cannabis between 28 December 2013 and 24 January 2014. A co-offender, who I will refer to as KC, has also entered a plea of guilty to the charge of unlawful confinement, based upon an Agreed Statement of Facts. The offender has disputed the facts alleged by the Crown with respect to the charge of unlawful confinement, and a disputed facts hearing was conducted on 9 and 10 February 2016. The offender and KC are due to be sentenced on 29 April 2016. These are my findings with respect to the facts pertaining to the offence of unlawful confinement committed by the offender.

Evidence of the complainant

The complainant gave evidence that he entered into an arrangement with the offender and KC about three weeks prior to 28 December 2013 to purchase on behalf of the offenders a large quantity of cannabis from a drug dealer known to him only as “Big G”. In his evidence in chief, the complainant described the agreement as one to purchase “7 to 10 pounds” of cannabis, or 10 pounds of cannabis. The agreed purchase price was $26,000. Later, in cross-examination, he was taken to his police statement made on 31 December 2013, and agreed that the arrangement was for the purchase of 7 pounds of cannabis. To my mind, nothing turns upon this discrepancy in the oral evidence of the complainant.

The complainant said that on 28 December 2013 he was at his apartment in Franklin in the Australian Capital Territory at about 11:20 pm when the offenders arrived. They drove to the premises in a Ford Territory vehicle. The apartment was on the first floor of the building. The complainant shared the apartment with Ty Pruckner, who was home that evening. Also present were Samuel Rooney and Shariah Kent.

The offenders brought with them a shopping bag containing money. The complainant said that he saw the money in the bag, but he did not count it. He went into another room in the apartment, telephoned Big G and arranged to meet Big G around the corner from the apartment to purchase the cannabis.

The complainant testified that the offender…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v Le Clair

Details

AGLC: R v Le Clair [2016] ACTSC 79
Case: [2016] ACTSC 79
Decision Date: 27 April 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Le Clair involved the defendant, Le Clair, who was charged with unlawful confinement alongside a co-offender. Le Clair disputed the extent of his involvement in the offence. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. Le Clair faced a contested facts hearing where the extent of his participation in the unlawful confinement was a central issue.

The legal issues that the court needed to resolve included determining the extent of Le Clair's involvement in the offence and the weight to be given to the evidence presented by both the prosecution and the defendant. The court had to assess whether the prosecution had proven beyond reasonable doubt that Le Clair was a principal in the second degree to the crime of unlawful confinement, and whether Le Clair's version of events was credible.

In reaching its decision, the court considered the testimonies of the witnesses, the evidence presented, and the credibility of the defendant's account. The court concluded that the prosecution had established the necessary elements of the offence against Le Clair, finding him to be a principal in the second degree. The court found Le Clair's evidence to be less credible than that of the prosecution witnesses, leading to a conviction on the charge of unlawful confinement.

The court ordered that Le Clair be found guilty of the offence and that a sentencing hearing be arranged to determine the appropriate penalty. The specific details of the sentence were to be determined at a later date.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [25] –[26]

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.