R v Saipani - [2020] ACTSC 191

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Saipani
Citation:	[2020] ACTSC 191
Hearing Dates:	23, 29–30 June, 1–2 July 2020
DecisionDate:	15 July 2020
Before:	Murrell CJ
Decision:	Guilty of aggravated burglary.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judge alone trial – Aggravated burglary – Joint commission
Legislation Cited:	Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) ss 45A, 311, 312 Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1991 (ACT) ss 49, 57 Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT) ss 68B, 68C
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Javarne Saipani (Accused)
Representation:	Counsel M Howe (Crown) J Purnell SC with A Costin (Accused)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Sharman Robertson (Accused)
File Number:	SCC 100 of 2019

MURRELL CJ

The trial

Pursuant to s 68B of the Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT) (SCA), on 12 May 2020 Mr Saipani (the accused) elected to be tried by a judge alone and his legal practitioner certified that he had been advised in relation to the election and had made the election freely.

When arraigned before me sitting as a judge alone, the accused pleaded not guilty to the offence that, on 5 November 2018 with Kyle Butkovic and Ibrahim Kaddour (the co-offenders), he entered or remained in a building, a unit in Lyneham (the unit), as a trespasser with intent to commit an offence that involved causing harm, or threatening to cause harm to anyone in the building, and at the time he was in company and had an offensive weapon.

Crown case

The Crown case was that, in the early hours of 5 November 2018, the accused and the co-offenders entered and/or remained in the Lyneham unit as trespassers. Inside, they committed acts of violence against DX and KM. At least two of the men were armed; Mr Butkovic was armed with an electrical discharge device and Mr Kaddour was armed with a knife.

The Crown relied on s 45A of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) (Criminal Code) to argue that the accused was guilty by virtue of “joint commission”.

The Crown identified two “pathways” to a finding of guilt by joint commission.

First, prior to entering the unit, the accused and the co-offenders reached an agreement to commit an aggravated burglary by entering the premises as trespassers with intent to harm or threaten harm.

Second, once the men were inside the unit, an agreement evolved whereby the accused and the co-offenders would remain on the premises as trespassers with intent to threaten or cause harm, despite being asked to leave.

Defence case

In opening, defence counsel outlined the defence case. He said that the three men had been invited to the unit, and the accused was invited into the premises. The accused was not present when the co-offenders were asked to leave as he was in a bedroom with DX. By the time that he emerged from the bedroom, the co-offenders were interacting amiably with the other occupants and had ceased to be trespassers.

Legislation

Section…

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 Saipani

Details

AGLC: R v Saipani [2020] ACTSC 191
Case: [2020] ACTSC 191
Decision Date: 15 July 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Saipani involved the defendant, Saipani, who was on trial for aggravated burglary. The dispute arose out of an incident where Saipani and others were alleged to have jointly committed an aggravated burglary. The case was heard by a single judge in the relevant court. The primary legal issue the court had to address was whether the defendant's participation in the aggravated burglary met the criteria for a judge alone trial, as opposed to a trial by jury. The court also needed to determine if the prosecution had successfully proven the elements of the offence of aggravated burglary beyond reasonable doubt.

The court examined the nature of the offence and the applicable legal framework for judge alone trials in cases of aggravated burglary. It considered whether the case involved factors such as the defendant's previous criminal history or the seriousness of the offence that warranted a judge alone trial. The court assessed the evidence presented by the prosecution, including witness testimonies and any other relevant material, to ascertain whether the defendant's involvement in the joint commission of the aggravated burglary was established beyond reasonable doubt. The court concluded that the prosecution had met the required burden of proof and found the defendant guilty of the offence.

The court found that the case did not involve factors that necessitated a trial by jury and that a judge alone trial was appropriate. The defendant's conviction for aggravated burglary was upheld. The court's decision was based on a thorough examination of the evidence and applicable legal principles. The court ordered that the defendant be found guilty of aggravated burglary, as per the prosecution's case.

Orders

Orders of the court

Guilty of aggravated burglary.

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.