R v Mason

Case [2019] ACTSC 161

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

R v Mason

Citation:

[2019] ACTSC 161

Hearing Dates:

7, 8, 9 and 22 July, 28 October, 5 and 23 November 2015

DecisionDate:

26 June 2019

Before:

Penfold J

Decision:

The verdicts are as follows:

Counts on the indictment:

Count 1: Not guilty

Count 2: Not guilty

Transferred charges

Light unauthorised fire (5 January 2014): Not guilty

Light unauthorised fire (16 January 2014): Not guilty

Possession of knife in public place: Not guilty

Trespass: Guilty

Theft: Guilty

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL LAW – GENERAL MATTERS – Trial by judge alone – two charges of causing bushfires – analysis of physical and fault elements – offences of specific intent – mental impairment defence – nature of burden imposed on defence by form of ACT Criminal Code.

CRIMINAL LAW – GENERAL MATTERS – Trial by judge alone – two charges of causing bushfires – physical element of offences not made out beyond reasonable doubt – verdicts of not guilty.

CRIMINAL LAW – GENERAL MATTERS – Trial by judge alone – five charges transferred from Magistrates Court – two backup charges of lighting fires – physical element of offences not made out beyond reasonable doubt – charge of possessing knife in public – reasonable excuse for possession found – verdicts of not guilty on three charges – one charge each of trespass and theft – physical elements made out – mental impairment defence not established – verdicts of guilty on charges of trespass and theft.

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) ss 309, 382

Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) ss 13, 14, 15, 18, 20, 27, 28, 29, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 301, 304, 321, 405, dictionary
Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) ss 7.3, 13.4
Emergencies Act 2004 (ACT) s 125
Evidence Act 2011 (ACT) ss 55, 98, 101(2)
Public Order (Protection of Persons and Property) Act 1971 (Cth) s 11

Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT) ss 68C, 68CA, 68E, 68D(2)

Cases Cited:

DPP v Scheele [2016] ACTCA 23

Edwards v The Queen (1993) 178 CLR 193
Fleming v The Queen [1998] HCA 68; 197 CLR 250
Hawkins v The Queen (1994) 179 CLR 500
R v Barker [2014] ACTSC 153
R v Gale [2012] NSWCCA 174; 217 A Crim R 487
R v Stables [2014] NSWSC 967

Shepard v The Queen (1990) 170 CLR 573

Texts Cited:

Ian Freckelton QC and Hugh Selby, Expert Evidence (Thomson Reuters, 5th ed, 2013)

Parties:

The Queen (Crown)

Shane John Mason (Accused)

Representation:

Counsel

A Jamieson-Williams (Crown)

R Livingston (Accused)

Solicitors

ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)

Legal Aid ACT (Accused)

File Numbers:

SCC 124 of 2014; SCC 125 of 2014

Introduction

  1. The accused, Shane Mason, was arraigned before me on 7 July 2015 on the following charges (the bushfire charges):

(a)Count 1: that on 5 January 2014 he recklessly caused a fire and was reckless about the spread of the fire to vegetation on property belonging to someone else.

(b)Count 2: that on…

Continue reading R v Mason

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Mason [2019] ACTSC 161
Case
[2019] ACTSC 161
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Mason, the defendant was tried by a judge alone in a court in Australia. The charges included causing bushfires, lighting unauthorised fires, possessing a knife in public, trespassing, and theft. The crux of the dispute centred on whether the prosecution had sufficiently proven the physical and fault elements of the charges, as well as whether the defence of mental impairment was established. The court had to assess the adequacy of the evidence provided and apply the relevant legal standards to determine the outcomes of the various charges.

The primary legal issues addressed by the court were the sufficiency of the evidence to establish the physical elements of the bushfire charges, the applicability of the defence of reasonable excuse for the knife possession charge, and the effectiveness of the mental impairment defence for the trespass and theft charges. The court needed to determine if the prosecution had proven beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant had caused the bushfires and had committed the other alleged offences. Additionally, the court had to evaluate whether the defendant's mental condition negated their capacity to form the necessary intent for the trespass and theft charges.

The court found that the prosecution had not proven the physical elements of the bushfire charges beyond reasonable doubt, leading to verdicts of not guilty on those counts. Regarding the unauthorised fire charges, the court similarly found the prosecution's evidence insufficient to meet the required standard, resulting in not guilty verdicts. For the knife possession charge, the court accepted the defence's argument of a reasonable excuse, leading to a not guilty verdict. However, the court found that the physical elements of the trespass and theft charges were proven, and the defence of mental impairment was not established, resulting in guilty verdicts on those charges.

The final orders of the court were as follows: the defendant was found not guilty on the charges of causing bushfires and lighting unauthorised fires, as well as the charge of possessing a knife in public. The defendant was found guilty of trespass and theft. The verdicts reflect the court's determination of the sufficiency of the evidence and the application of legal defences in the context of the charges presented.

Orders

Orders of the court

The verdicts are as follows:

Counts on the indictment:

Count 1: Not guilty

Count 2: Not guilty

Transferred charges

Light unauthorised fire (5 January 2014): Not guilty

Light unauthorised fire (16 January 2014): Not guilty

Possession of knife in public place: Not guilty

Trespass: Guilty

Theft: Guilty

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.