R v Neal - [2022] NSWDC 23

District Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Neal [2022] NSWDC 23
Hearing dates: 9 February 2022 – 14 February 2022
Date of orders: 18 February 2022
Decision date: 18 February 2022
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Mahony SC DCJ
Decision:
Verdicts of Guilty on Counts 1, 2, 3 and 4 on the Indictiment.

Catchwords:
Robbery – break and enter dwelling house and commit a serious indictable offence – larceny – aggravated (at the time of the break and enter he knew there was a person or persons inside) – supply prohibited drug (methylamphetamine) – break and enter and commit serious indictable offence – circumstantial Crown case.

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900
Criminal Procedure Act 1986
Drug Misuse & Trafficking Act 1985
Evidence Act 1995
Evidence Act 1995
Road Transport Act 2013

Cases Cited:
Amante v R [2020] NSWCCA 34
Goode v Angland [2017] NSWCA 311
Van Der Lely NV v Bamfords Ltd (1963) RPC 61

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Daniel Shane Neal (Accused)
Representation: Counsel:
C. Dobraszczyk (Crown)
B. Robinson (Accused)
Solicitors:
H. Braid (Crown)
H. Shaw (Accused)

File Number(s): 18/311358
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

The evidence in the Crown case

Statement of Agreed Facts – Exhibit A
“Insignia Hair and Day Spa
Rawson Ave Penrith and Methylamphetamine
Motor cycle collision
The Chicken Run Cranebrook
Search warrants

Evidence of Melissa Byrne
Evidence of Alix Smithard
Evidence of Oliver Scroope
Evidence of Sergeant Simon Kleyn
Evidence of Senior Constable Michael Smith

Evidence of Senior Constable Phillip Colburn

Constable Thomas Verhelst

Evidence of Senior Constable Bethany Elder

Evidence of Senior Constable Benjamin Collings

Evidence of Sienna Heidi Collins

The evidence of the Officer in Charge, Detective Senior Constable Tyler Ryan

Evidence of Melanie Phillips

The accused’s evidence

Cross-examination of the accused

The Crown address

The accused’s address

Directions of law

Findings of fact

Determination

Order

Judgment on verdict

On 9 February 2022, the accused pleaded Not Guilty to the following four counts on the Indictment:

On 6 September 2018 at Penrith in the State of New South Wales, he did rob Melissa Burn of $677, the property of Insignia Hair and Day Spa.

This was an offence pursuant to s 94(a) of the Crimes Act 1900.

On 6 September 2018 at Penrith in the State of New South Wales, he did break and enter the dwelling house of James Scroope at [x] Rawson Avenue, Penrith, and did commit a serious indictable offence therein, namely, larceny in circumstances of aggravation, namely, at the time of the break and enter he knew there was a person or persons inside.

This was an offence pursuant to s 112(2) of the Crimes Act 1900.

On 6 September 2018 at Penrith in the State of New South Wales, he did supply a prohibited drug, namely, 27.7 grams of methylamphetamine. This was an offence pursuant to s 25(1) and s 29 of the Drug Misuse & Trafficking Act 1985.
On 4 October 2018 at Cranebrook in the State of New…

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 Neal

Details

AGLC: R v Neal [2022] NSWDC 23
Case: [2022] NSWDC 23
Decision Date: 18 February 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Neal, the respondent was convicted on four counts related to robbery, break and enter, and the supply of prohibited drugs. The case was heard in the relevant court of criminal jurisdiction. The primary dispute centred around whether the respondent had committed the serious indictable offences of robbery and supplying a prohibited drug, specifically methylamphetamine, during the break and enter of a dwelling house.

The legal issues that the court had to resolve included whether the respondent had knowingly entered the dwelling house with the intent to commit a serious indictable offence and whether the respondent was aware that there were persons inside the dwelling at the time of the break and enter. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the evidence presented by the Crown, although circumstantial, was sufficient to prove the respondent’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The court determined that the evidence provided by the Crown, while circumstantial, was sufficient to establish the respondent's guilt on all counts. The court found that the respondent had indeed broken and entered the dwelling house with the intent to commit a serious indictable offence and that he was aware that there were persons inside. Furthermore, the court concluded that the evidence supported the finding that the respondent had supplied the prohibited drug methylamphetamine. The court found the respondent guilty on all counts as charged in the indictment.

The court ordered that the respondent be found guilty on Counts 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the indictment. The respondent was subsequently sentenced in accordance with the court's determination.

Orders

Orders of the court

Verdicts of Guilty on Counts 1, 2, 3 and 4 on the Indictiment.

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Neal [2022] NSWDC 23
Hearing dates:	9 February 2022 – 14 February 2022
Date of orders:	18 February 2022
Decision date:	18 February 2022
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Mahony SC DCJ
Decision:	Verdicts of Guilty on Counts 1, 2, 3 and 4 on the Indictiment.
Catchwords:	Robbery – break and enter dwelling house and commit a serious indictable offence – larceny – aggravated (at the time of the break and enter he knew there was a person or persons inside) – supply prohibited drug (methylamphetamine) – break and enter and commit serious indictable offence – circumstantial Crown case.
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 Criminal Procedure Act 1986 Drug Misuse & Trafficking Act 1985 Evidence Act 1995 Evidence Act 1995 Road Transport Act 2013
Cases Cited:	Amante v R [2020] NSWCCA 34 Goode v Angland [2017] NSWCA 311 Van Der Lely NV v Bamfords Ltd (1963) RPC 61
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Daniel Shane Neal (Accused)
Representation:	Counsel: C. Dobraszczyk (Crown) B. Robinson (Accused) Solicitors: H. Braid (Crown) H. Shaw (Accused)
File Number(s):	18/311358
Publication restriction:	Nil