R v Pikula

[2020] ACTSC 265

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

R v Pikula

Citation:

[2020] ACTSC 265

Hearing Dates:

22 – 25 June 2020

DecisionDate:

3 July 2020

Reasons Date:

13 October 2020

Before:

Loukas-Karlsson J

Decision:

The accused is not guilty of the single count in the indictment dated 19 June 2020

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Trial – Trial by judge alone – aggravated robbery –   Circumstantial Case – Identification of accused – photo board identification by the complainant – not guilty verdict

Legislation Cited:

Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) s 309, 310

Evidence Act 2011 (ACT) ss 116, 137, 165

Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT) ss 68B, 68C

Cases Cited:

Domican v The Queen (1992) 173 CLR 555

El Hassan v R [2007] NSWCCA 148
Filippou v The Queen [2015] HCA 29; 256 CLR 47
Lane v R [2013] NSWCCA 317; 241 A Crim R 321
R v Connors (No 2) [2016] ACTSC 333
R v DM [2010] ACTSC 137
R v Droudis (No 14) [2016] NSWSC 1550
R v Graham [2017] ACTSC 267
R v Heuston (1995) 81 A Crim R 387
R v Mulcahy [2010] ACTSC 98
R v Song (No 2) [2017] ACTSC 148
Shepherd v The Queen (1990) 170 CLR 573
The Queen v Baden-Clay [2016] HCA 35; 258 CLR 308
The Queen v Hillier [2007] HCA 13; 228 CLR 618

Parties:

The Queen (Crown)

Tavake Lee Pikula (Defendant)

Representation:

Counsel

E Wren (Crown)

D Rutherford (Defendant)

Solicitors

ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)

Aboriginal Legal Service (ACT/NSW) (Defendant)

File Numbers:

SCC 37 of 2020

LOUKAS-KARLSSON J

Introduction

1. On 3 July 2020 I found the accused not guilty of aggravated robbery and I indicated that reasons would be published at a later date. The reasons follow.

1. This was a judge-alone trial conducted pursuant to s 68B of the Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT) (Supreme Court Act) after Tavake Lee Pikula (the accused) signed an election to be tried by judge alone on 28 April 2020.

1. The accused was charged with one offence on an indictment dated 19 June 2020 being that on 2 December 2019 at Canberra, the accused committed robbery and at the time had an offensive weapon with him contrary to s 310 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) (Criminal Code).

1. The accused was arraigned on 23 June 2020 and pleaded not guilty to the offence.

Directions

1. Section 68C(2) of the Supreme Court Act requires that the judgment in a judge-alone trial include the principles of law applied and the findings of fact on which the Court has relied. Section 68C(3) requires that where a warning or direction is required by law to be given, or a comment to be made, to a jury in proceedings, the Court in a judge-alone trial must take the warning, direction or comment into account when considering its verdict. I approach these statutory obligations in accordance with the statements made in Filippou v The…