R v M.J.J. - [2004] NSWSC 57

CITATION: R v M.J.J. [2004] NSWSC 57

HEARING DATE(S): 04/02/04, 05/02/04, 09/02/04, 10/02/04, 11/02/04, 12/02/04, 16/02/04, 17/02/04, 18/02/04

JUDGMENT DATE:
18 February 2004

JUDGMENT OF: Barr J at 1

DECISION: I find the accused not guilty of the attempted murder of T.S. and I direct the entry of a verdict of acquittal on that charge; Pursuant to his plea of guilty, I convict the accused of the malicious wounding of T.S. with intent to do her grievous bodily harm; I find the accused not guilty of maliciously throwing an explosive substance at T.S. with intent to do her grievous bodily harm and I direct the entry of a verdict of acquittal on that charge; I find the accused guilty of maliciously wounding C.B. with intent to do grievous bodily harm to a person. I convict him on that charge; Pursuant to his plea of guilty I convict the accused of using a prohibited weapon without being authorised to do so by license or permit.

LEGISLATION CITED: Criminal Procedure Act 1986 s132

CASES CITED: Knight v The Queen (1992) 175 CLR 495

PARTIES :
Regina
M.J.J.

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 70060/03

COUNSEL: Crown: L Gray
Accused: P Zahra SC

SOLICITORS: Crown: S E O'Connor
Accused: W Grant

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

JUSTICE GRAHAM BARR

18 FEBRUARY 2004

70060/03 REGINA v M.J.J.
REASONS FOR VERDICT

THE ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION

1 HIS HONOUR: On the day before the commencement of his trial the accused formally elected in accordance with s132 Criminal Procedure Act 1986 for trial by judge alone. The Crown consented. The trial has accordingly proceeded before me alone. The accused and the two complainants were sixteen years old at the time of the events giving rise to the charges. Accordingly I shall refer to them throughout these reasons only by their initials. For much the same reason I shall refer to most of the witnesses I mention only by their initials.

2 The counts in the indictment may be summarised as follows-

1. On 3 April 2003 at Salamander Bay, New South Wales the accused wounded T.S. with intent to murder her;

2. Alternatively to the first count, at the same time and place the accused maliciously wounded T.S. with intent to do her grievous bodily harm;

3. At the same time and place the accused maliciously threw an explosive substance, namely a petrol bomb, at T.S. with intent to do her grievous bodily harm;

4. At the same time and place the accused maliciously wounded C.B. with intent to do grievous bodily harm to a person; and

5. At the same time and place the accused used a prohibited weapon, namely a crossbow, without being authorised to do so by any license or permit.

3 The accused pleaded not guilty to the first count but guilty to the second. The Crown declined to accept the plea in discharge of the first count. The accused pleaded not guilty to the third count. With respect to…

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 M.J.J.

Details

AGLC: R v M.J.J. [2004] NSWSC 57
Case: [2004] NSWSC 57
Decision Date: 18 February 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of New South Wales, the accused, M.J.J., faced charges stemming from an incident on 3 April 2003 at a high school where he, T.S., and C.B. were students. The charges included attempted murder of T.S., malicious wounding of T.S., maliciously throwing an explosive substance at T.S., malicious wounding of C.B., and using a prohibited weapon without authorization. The accused pleaded not guilty to the attempted murder charge but guilty to the malicious wounding of T.S. The legal issues involved determining the accused's intent regarding the charges, particularly whether he intended to kill T.S. or merely cause grievous bodily harm. The court had to weigh the evidence and testimonies to ascertain the accused's true intent and actions.

The court examined the accused's preparation, including his purchase of a crossbow and incendiary devices, and his statements and actions on the day of the incident. The accused had researched crossbows and incendiary devices online and had purchased a crossbow, fitted with broadheads designed for killing animals, and made petrol bombs. The court noted the accused's claim that he intended to scare T.S. rather than kill her, supported by his assertion that he aimed for her stomach, not her chest. The court considered the accused's statements during the police interview and his actions after shooting T.S., including his attempt to throw a bomb, which did not ignite, in the direction of people who were approaching him. The court concluded that while the accused's actions were premeditated and dangerous, there was insufficient evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he intended to kill T.S.

The court found the accused not guilty of the attempted murder charge due to reasonable doubt about his intent to kill. However, the court found the accused guilty of maliciously wounding T.S. with intent to do her grievous bodily harm, based on his admission and the evidence of the wound. The court also found the accused guilty of maliciously wounding C.B. and using a prohibited weapon without authorization. The court directed the entry of a verdict of acquittal on the charge of maliciously throwing an explosive substance at T.S. because there was not enough evidence to prove the intent to harm T.S. with the bomb.

Orders