R v Parkes - [2025] NSWDC 144

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Parkes [2025] NSWDC 144
Hearing dates: 7-10 April 2025, 14 April 2025, 16 April 2025
Date of orders: 24 April 2025
Decision date: 24 April 2025
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Fitzsimmons SC DCJ
Decision:
[190] I enter the following verdicts:
(1) On Count 1, break and enter into a dwelling house and committing a serious indictable offence therein in circumstances of special aggravation, contrary to s 112(3) of the Crimes Act, I find the accused NOT GUILTY. To the extent that the Crown relies on the statutory alternative, the accused is found NOT GUILTY.
(2) On Count 2, robbery armed with an offensive weapon in circumstances of aggravation, contrary to s 97(2) of the Crimes Act, I find the accused NOT GUILTY. To the extent that the Crown relies on the statutory alternative, the accused is found NOT GUILTY.
(3) On Count 3, robbery in company, contrary to s 97(1) of the Crimes Act, I find the accused NOT GUILTY.
(4) On Count 4, attempt to discharge a firearm with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, contrary to s 33A(1)(b) of the Crimes Act, I find the accused NOT GUILTY.

Catchwords:
CRIME — mental health – accused not fit to be tried — special hearing – judge alone trial
CRIME — violent offences — armed robbery — offensive weapon — aggravated robbery — in company
CRIME — violent offences — discharge firearm with intent to cause grievous bodily harm
CRIME — complicity — joint criminal enterprise — extended joint criminal enterprise
CRIME — property offences — break, enter and commit serious indictable offence — circumstances of aggravation
EVIDENCE — identification evidence — unreliable evidence – visual identification – voice identification – inconsistent identification evidence – incorrect identification of accent
EVIDENCE — witness evidence — warnings — unreliable evidence
EVIDENCE – ERISP by accused – Liberato direction
EVIDENCE – alibi evidence adduced by Crown

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW)
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)
Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Dyers v The Queen [2002] HCA 45
Fleming v R (1998) 197 CLR 250
Huynh v The Queen [2013] HCA 6
Lehrmann v Network Ten Pty Limited [2024] FCA 369
May v R [2012] NSWCCA 111
Youkhana v R [2015] NSWCCA 41

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Crown, Parkes
Representation:
Crown: D Carnell
Defence: A Chauvet

File Number(s): 2022/00158614

Judgment

The accused Andre Parkes (also known as ‘Drey’ or ‘Dre’) is charged with four offences as follows: –

Count 1: Break and enter into a dwelling house and committing a serious indictable offence therein in circumstances of special aggravation, contrary to s 112(3) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) (Crimes Act);

Count 2: Robbery armed with an offensive weapon in circumstances of aggravation, contrary to s 97(2) of the Crimes Act;

Count 3: Robbery in company, contrary to s 97(1) of the Crimes Act; and

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 Parkes

Details

AGLC: R v Parkes [2025] NSWDC 144
Case: [2025] NSWDC 144
Decision Date: 24 April 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Queensland, the accused, Parkes, was charged with multiple offences related to a violent crime, including armed robbery, aggravated robbery in company, and attempted discharge of a firearm with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. The court considered whether Parkes was fit to be tried and whether there was sufficient evidence to convict him of the charges. The court had to determine the admissibility and reliability of identification evidence, as well as the applicability of the Liberato direction in relation to evidence provided by the accused.

The legal issues before the court involved the fitness of the accused to be tried, the reliability of identification evidence, and the applicability of the statutory alternatives for certain charges. The court also had to consider whether the evidence was sufficient to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. In particular, the court needed to assess the reliability of visual and voice identifications, which were inconsistent and potentially unreliable, and the impact of these issues on the overall case against the accused.

The court found that the evidence against the accused was not reliable enough to convict him on any of the charges. The identification evidence was deemed unreliable due to inconsistencies and potential misidentifications. The court also found that the evidence was insufficient to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted that the accused was not fit to be tried, and therefore, entered not guilty verdicts on all counts. The court highlighted the importance of reliable evidence in criminal cases and the need for a fair trial.

The court's final orders were that the accused was found not guilty on all counts. The court emphasised the importance of reliable evidence in criminal cases and the need for a fair trial. The court's decision highlights the importance of ensuring that the accused's right to a fair trial is upheld, even in cases where the evidence against them may be strong. The court's decision also underscores the need for careful consideration of identification evidence and the potential for misidentification in criminal cases.

Orders

Orders of the court

[190] I enter the following verdicts:

(1) On Count 1, break and enter into a dwelling house and committing a serious indictable offence therein in circumstances of special aggravation, contrary to s 112(3) of the Crimes Act, I find the accused NOT GUILTY. To the extent that the Crown relies on the statutory alternative, the accused is found NOT GUILTY.

(2) On Count 2, robbery armed with an offensive weapon in circumstances of aggravation, contrary to s 97(2) of the Crimes Act, I find the accused NOT GUILTY. To the extent that the Crown relies on the statutory alternative, the accused is found NOT GUILTY.

(3) On Count 3, robbery in company, contrary to s 97(1) of the Crimes Act, I find the accused NOT GUILTY.

(4) On Count 4, attempt to discharge a firearm with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, contrary to s 33A(1)(b) of the Crimes Act, I find the accused NOT 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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Parkes [2025] NSWDC 144
Hearing dates:	7-10 April 2025, 14 April 2025, 16 April 2025
Date of orders:	24 April 2025
Decision date:	24 April 2025
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Fitzsimmons SC DCJ
Decision:	[190] I enter the following verdicts: (1) On Count 1, break and enter into a dwelling house and committing a serious indictable offence therein in circumstances of special aggravation, contrary to s 112(3) of the Crimes Act, I find the accused NOT GUILTY. To the extent that the Crown relies on the statutory alternative, the accused is found NOT GUILTY. (2) On Count 2, robbery armed with an offensive weapon in circumstances of aggravation, contrary to s 97(2) of the Crimes Act, I find the accused NOT GUILTY. To the extent that the Crown relies on the statutory alternative, the accused is found NOT GUILTY. (3) On Count 3, robbery in company, contrary to s 97(1) of the Crimes Act, I find the accused NOT GUILTY. (4) On Count 4, attempt to discharge a firearm with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, contrary to s 33A(1)(b) of the Crimes Act, I find the accused NOT GUILTY.
Catchwords:	CRIME — mental health – accused not fit to be tried — special hearing – judge alone trial CRIME — violent offences — armed robbery — offensive weapon — aggravated robbery — in company CRIME — violent offences — discharge firearm with intent to cause grievous bodily harm CRIME — complicity — joint criminal enterprise — extended joint criminal enterprise CRIME — property offences — break, enter and commit serious indictable offence — circumstances of aggravation EVIDENCE — identification evidence — unreliable evidence – visual identification – voice identification – inconsistent identification evidence – incorrect identification of accent EVIDENCE — witness evidence — warnings — unreliable evidence EVIDENCE – ERISP by accused – Liberato direction EVIDENCE – alibi evidence adduced by Crown
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW)
Cases Cited:	Dyers v The Queen [2002] HCA 45 Fleming v R (1998) 197 CLR 250 Huynh v The Queen [2013] HCA 6 Lehrmann v Network Ten Pty Limited [2024] FCA 369 May v R [2012] NSWCCA 111 Youkhana v R [2015] NSWCCA 41
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Crown, Parkes
Representation:	Crown: D Carnell Defence: A Chauvet
File Number(s):	2022/00158614