R v Mitchell Lloyd Jacka - [2011] ACTSC 63

R v MITCHELL LLOYD JACKA
[2011] ACTSC 63 (14 APRIL 2011)

CRIMINAL LAW – trial by judge alone – identity evidence – considerations to be taken into account – whether “Molotov cocktail” falls within the definition of prohibited weapon under the Prohibited Weapons Act 1996 – definition of “damage property” and “deface the property” under the Criminal Code 2002 – accused guilty on both charges

Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT), s 68C
Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), s 400
Prohibited Weapons Act 1996 (ACT), s 4C, s 4D, Schedule 1, Parts 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4
Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), ss 116, 165(1)(b)
Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1991 (ACT), s 8

Fleming v The Queen (1998) 197 CLR 250

The Macquarie Dictionary (3^rd ed, 1998)

No. SCC 229 of 2010

Judge: Gray J
Supreme Court of the ACT
Date:14 April 2011

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE )
) No. SCC 229 of 2010
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY )

R
v
MITCHELL LLOYD JACKA

ORDER

Judge:  Gray J
Date:  14 April 2011
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

In respect of count 1 of the indictment charging that on 28 November 2009 at Canberra in the Australian Capital Territory Mitchell Lloyd Jacka caused damage to a building by fire and was reckless about causing the damage, the Court finds the accused guilty.

In respect of count 2 of the indictment charging that on 28 November 2009 at Canberra aforesaid Mitchell Lloyd Jacka used a prohibited weapon and was not authorised to do so by a permit or otherwise, the Court finds the accused guilty.

On 2 March 2011, the accused, Mitchell Lloyd Jacka, pleaded not guilty to a charge that:

... on the 28^th day of November 2009 at Canberra in the Australian Capital Territory [he] caused damage to a building by fire and was reckless about causing the damage.
Particulars:
[address of premises]

Before the plea was taken, the charge was amended to insert the word “caused” in place of the words “attempted to cause” that appeared in the original indictment.

The accused also pleaded not guilty to a further charge that:

... on the 28^th day of November 2009 at Canberra aforesaid [he] used a prohibited weapon and was not authorised to do so by a permit or otherwise.
Particulars:
Two 375ml bottles containing an inflammable liquid capable of killing or incapacitating someone.

Mr D Sahu Khan appeared as counsel for the prosecution and Ms T Warwick as counsel for the accused.

Before the Court first allocated a date for trial of these charges, the accused elected to be tried by judge alone.

Section 68C of the Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT) provides that a judge who tries a criminal proceeding without a jury may make any finding that could have been made by a jury as to the guilt of an accused person and such finding has the same effect as a verdict of a jury. My judgment in this proceeding is to include the principles of…

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 Mitchell Lloyd Jacka

Details

AGLC: R v Mitchell Lloyd Jacka [2011] ACTSC 63
Case: [2011] ACTSC 63
Decision Date: 14 APRIL 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Mitchell Lloyd Jacka was tried before his Honour Judge Ryan in the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory on two charges related to an incident on 28 November 2009. The first charge was that Jacka caused damage to a building by fire and was reckless about causing such damage. The second charge was that Jacka used a prohibited weapon, specifically a "Molotov cocktail," and was not authorised to do so by a permit or otherwise. The trial was conducted without a jury at Jacka's election.

The legal issues before the court included whether the Molotov cocktail qualified as a prohibited weapon under the Prohibited Weapons Act 1996 and the definitions of "damage property" and "deface the property" under the Criminal Code 2002. The court considered whether the evidence presented was sufficient to prove Jacka's identity as the perpetrator of the offences and to establish the elements of the charges beyond reasonable doubt. The court also examined the nature and extent of the damage caused to the property to determine if it fell within the definitions provided by the Criminal Code.

In delivering the judgment, the court found that the prosecution had successfully established the identity of the accused and proven the elements of both charges beyond reasonable doubt. The court held that the Molotov cocktail used by Jacka constituted a prohibited weapon under the Act and that the damage to the property was sufficient to constitute "damage to property" under the Criminal Code. The court found Jacka guilty on both counts. The court's decision was based on the evidence presented, including witness testimonies, forensic analysis, and the accused's statements and actions.

The final orders of the court were that Mitchell Lloyd Jacka be found guilty on both counts of the indictment. For the first count, the court found Jacka guilty of causing damage to a building by fire and being reckless about causing such damage. For the second count, the court found Jacka guilty of using a prohibited weapon without the necessary authorisation.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. In respect of count 1 of the indictment charging that on 28 November 2009 at Canberra in the Australian Capital Territory Mitchell Lloyd Jacka caused damage to a building by fire and was reckless about causing the damage, the Court finds the accused guilty.

2. In respect of count 2 of the indictment charging that on 28 November 2009 at Canberra aforesaid Mitchell Lloyd Jacka used a prohibited weapon and was not authorised to do so by a permit or otherwise, the Court finds the accused guilt

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.