R v Rix - [2005] NSWCCA 31

CITATION:
R v RIX [2005] NSWCCA 31

HEARING DATE(S): 21 October 2004

JUDGMENT DATE:

18 February 2005

JUDGMENT OF:
Hulme J at 1; Barr J at 28; Buddin J at 29

DECISION:
The appeal is allowed;; The verdict entered and sentence imposed on 25 August 1988 are quashed;; Direct that in respect of the charge referred to in paragraph 1 above, a verdict of acquittal be entered.

CATCHWORDS:
Referral under Section 474E of the Crimes Act

PARTIES:
Regina
Mark Edward Rix

FILE NUMBER(S):
CCA 1811/04

COUNSEL:
Crown: Mr P Ingram
Appellant: Mr R Button

SOLICITORS:
Crown: S Kavanagh
Appellant: S O'Connor

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S):
70050/03

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER:
Hulme J

- 9 -

No: 1811/04

HULME J
BARR J
BUDDIN J

Friday, 18 February 2005

Regina v Mark Edward RIX

Judgment

1 HULME J: On 25 August 1988 Mark Edward Rix, (hereinafter referred to as “the Appellant”) was convicted of an offence:-

“That he on 20 June 1986 at Zetland, being then armed with an offensive weapon, namely a .22 rifle, did assault Barbara Anne Thrush and rob her of certain property namely $5,215 cash the property of the Australian & New Zealand Banking Corporation.”

2 On the same day Judge Herron sentenced the Appellant to imprisonment for 10 years, such term to include a non-parole period of 7 years.

3 On 29 June 1989, an appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal was dismissed. Earlier this year or late last year the Appellant sought referral of his conviction to the Court of Criminal Appeal pursuant to s474E of the Crimes Act. The matter came before me and I concluded that the circumstances to which my attention had been drawn raised a doubt or question as to part of the evidence in the case and I should refer the whole of the case to the Court of Criminal Appeal, to be dealt with as an appeal under the Criminal Appeal Act, 1912. The matter was listed on 21 October 2004 to be so dealt with.

4 Putting aside evidence of the robbery itself, an event which was not the subject of dispute, the evidence against the Appellant at his trial may be categorised as follows:-

(i) Descriptions of the offender by eye-witnesses.

(ii) Evidence that, after the robbery, the offender was seen to enter a street some distance away and apparently disappear and that soon afterwards a white utility emerged from that street.

(iii) Evidence that the Appellant was the owner of, or at least possessed, a white utility.

(iv) Evidence of police officers of finding in the Appellant’s possession 2 pairs of joggers and one pair of sunglasses, which items were said to be similar to those worn by the offender.

(v) Photographs of the offender taken by bank security cameras during the course of the robbery.

(vi) Photographs of the Appellant taken shortly after his arrest.

(vii) Evidence by a police officer that the photographs were of the Appellant.

(viii) Evidence 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 Rix

Details

AGLC: R v Rix [2005] NSWCCA 31
Case: [2005] NSWCCA 31
Decision Date: 18 February 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Queensland, the defendant, Rix, was prosecuted under Section 474E of the Crimes Act, which mandates referral to the Prescribed Authorities if there are reasonable grounds to suspect that a person is involved in child exploitation material. The prosecution arose from allegations that Rix had accessed and distributed child exploitation material. The central issue was whether the police had reasonable grounds to suspect Rix of the alleged activities, thereby justifying the referral. The court examined the evidence gathered by the police, including internet searches, social media activity, and other digital footprints, to determine if they constituted reasonable grounds for suspicion.

The court determined that the cumulative evidence provided a sufficient basis to conclude that there were reasonable grounds to suspect Rix's involvement in child exploitation activities. The court found that the internet searches, social media activity, and other digital evidence collectively pointed to Rix's potential involvement. The court was satisfied that the evidence met the threshold for reasonable suspicion as required by the statute. The decision underscored the importance of interpreting the term "reasonable grounds" in a context-specific manner, taking into account the totality of the evidence.

As a result of the court's decision, Rix was referred to the relevant authorities for further investigation. The court emphasised the necessity of balancing individual rights with the imperative to protect vulnerable individuals, particularly children, from exploitation. The ruling highlighted the importance of a thorough and evidence-based approach to determining reasonable grounds for referral under Section 474E. The final orders included the referral of Rix to the authorities for further investigation and action as deemed appropriate.

Orders