R v O'Neill - [2004] ACTSC 64

THE QUEEN v O’NEILL
[2004] ACTSC 64 (30 July 2004)

CRIMINAL LAW – trial by judge alone – using offensive weapon likely to endanger life intending to hinder apprehension – police officer struck by motor vehicle – whether intent established.

Supreme Court Act 1933, s 68A, s 68C

Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), s 33

Crimes Act 1900, s 24, s 27

Human Rights Act 2004, s 24

Evidence Act 1971, s 65

Fleming v The Queen (1998) 197 CLR 250

R v Massey [2000] ACTSC 107

R v Collins [2004] ACTSC 48

R v Tran [2003] ACTSC 53

Hamilton v R (1993) 66 A Crim R 575

Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610

Chamberlain v R [No 2] (1984) 153 CLR 521

Shepherd v R [No 5] (1990) 170 CLR 573

No SCC 56 of 2004

Judge: Connolly J
Supreme Court of the ACT
Date: 30 July 2004

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE     )
  )          No SCC 56 of 2004
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY           )

THE QUEEN

v

SHANE NORMAN O’NEILL

REASONS FOR DECISION

Judge:  Connolly J
Date:  30 July 2004
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT FINDS:

on the charge that on the 13^th day of February 2004 at Canberra in the Australian Capital Territory Shane Norman O’Neill used against Constable Douglas Inwood an offensive weapon, namely a blue Holden Commodore Sedan YYK173, likely to endanger human life, intending to prevent or hinder his lawful apprehension, the accused guilty.

At about 12.30 in the afternoon of 13 February 2004 Constable Douglas Inwood of the Australian Federal Police was on motorcycle duty in southern Canberra, and was struck by a Commodore motor vehicle which had stopped in Barritt Street, Kambah. The car had stopped after being directed to do so by Constable Inwood, who stopped about two to two and a half metres behind the vehicle. After stopping, the vehicle reversed, and struck Constable Inwood’s motorcycle, pushing the motorcycle over and onto the Constable causing him to sustain a fractured wrist. The car then accelerated away.

The accused, Shane Norman O’Neill, is said by the Director of Public Prosecutions to have been the driver of the car on that day, and he is charged with using an offensive weapon, namely the motor vehicle, against Constable Inwood, likely to endanger human life, intending to prevent or hinder his lawful apprehension. He is further charged with assaulting Constable Inwood occasioning him actual bodily harm.

On 29 June 2004 the accused pleaded not guilty to both counts. He had earlier, on 24 June 2004, elected to be tried by judge alone, in accordance with the provisions of s 68A of the Supreme Court Act 1933 (the Supreme Court Act). Section 68C of the Supreme Court Act sets out the procedure to be followed in a trial by judge alone as follows -

68C Verdict of judge in criminal proceedings
A judge who tries criminal proceedings without a jury may make any finding that could have been made by a jury…

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 O'Neill

Details

AGLC: R v O'Neill [2004] ACTSC 64
Case: [2004] ACTSC 64
Decision Date: 30 July 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v O'Neill involved the accused, Shane Norman O'Neill, who was charged with using an offensive weapon, namely a motor vehicle, against Constable Douglas Inwood likely to endanger human life, intending to prevent or hinder his lawful apprehension. Additionally, he was charged with assaulting Constable Inwood occasioning him actual bodily harm. The trial was conducted by Judge Connolly in the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory. The central issue was whether O'Neill intentionally reversed his vehicle into Constable Inwood intending to hinder his lawful apprehension. The prosecution argued that O'Neill deliberately reversed the vehicle into Constable Inwood to evade arrest, while the defence claimed it was an accident.

The court considered the prosecution's case, which included testimonies from Constable Inwood, independent witnesses, and forensic evidence. Constable Inwood testified that he was following O'Neill when the latter stopped abruptly in the middle of the road and reversed into his motorcycle. Witnesses corroborated this account, and photographs of the scene supported the location of the incident. The court also examined Ms. Scott's testimony, O'Neill's de facto, who initially lied to protect him but later provided a different account. O'Neill himself testified that the reversal was accidental, but the court found his explanation implausible and inconsistent with other evidence.

Judge Connolly concluded that the prosecution had proven beyond reasonable doubt that O'Neill intentionally reversed his vehicle into Constable Inwood to hinder his lawful apprehension. The court found O'Neill guilty on the first count and did not proceed to the second count due to the principle of double jeopardy. The court commended the actions of bystanders who assisted Constable Inwood and contributed to the apprehension of O'Neill.

Orders