R v Scott Owen Brown - [2009] NSWDC 112

CITATION: R v Scott Owen BROWN [2009] NSWDC 112

HEARING DATE(S): 12-13 May 2009

JUDGMENT DATE:
13 May 2009

JURISDICTION: Criminal

JUDGMENT OF: Murrell SC DCJ

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - particular offences - offences against the person - property offences - break and enter a dwelling house and commit larceny - in company - joint criminal enterprise - damage property - intimidate

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007

CASES CITED: Director of Public Prosecutions v Fraser [2008] NSWSC 244
McAuliffe v The Queen (1995) 183 CLR 108
R v Brougham (1986) 43 SASR 187
R v Jacobs and Mehajer [2004] NSWCCA 462
R v Tangye (1997) 92 A Crim R 545
Taufahema v The Queen [2006] NSWCCA 152

PARTIES: Regina
Scott Owen BROWN

FILE NUMBER(S): 2009/00000740

COUNSEL: M Pincott for the Crown
G Brady for the accused

SOLICITORS: Department of Public Prosecutions
Pogson Cronin Solicitors & Notary

The Trial

1 On 11 May 2009, the accused filed an election to be tried by judge alone and the DPP consented. I was satisfied that, before making the election, the accused had sought and received advice from a barrister.

2 When arraigned on 12 May 2009, the accused pleaded not guilty to the following offences, each of which allegedly occurred on 2 September 2008 at Lavington:

3 The accused pleaded guilty to a fourth offence of stealing a bottle of alcohol in the complainant’s dwelling.

Outline of Evidence

4 The accused lived in the same street as the complainant. On the night of 1 - 2 September 2008, there was a party at the flat of the accused and his sister. P and M were present. The accused became very intoxicated. Late in the night, a female partygoer observed the accused holding a black plastic object containing a set of five coloured lights. She heard the accused say something like "I'm going to go across the road to sell these lights to Brett". He mentioned trading the lights for drugs. The accused walked out of the flat holding the lights. He began to run across the road towards a block of flats. As he started running, P and M followed behind him.

5 At about 4 a.m. on 2 September 2008, the complainant was at home asleep. She was woken by the sound of voices outside her bedroom window, which was close to the locked front door of her residence. Within seconds of hearing the voices, she heard the front door bang. Later, it was discovered that the front door lock had been forcibly broken.

6 Two young men (P and M) came into the complainant’s bedroom, demanding drugs and demanding to know the whereabouts of "Ben". They became "manic",…

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 Scott Owen Brown

Details

AGLC: R v Scott Owen Brown [2009] NSWDC 112
Case: [2009] NSWDC 112
Decision Date: 13 May 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Scott Owen Brown involved the appellant, who was charged with various offences including breaking and entering a dwelling house and committing larceny, while doing so in company and engaging in a joint criminal enterprise, causing damage to property and intimidating individuals. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The appellant was convicted on multiple counts and sentenced to imprisonment. He appealed against both his conviction and the severity of his sentence.

The central legal issues addressed in the appeal related to whether the trial judge had correctly interpreted the law regarding joint criminal enterprise, particularly in relation to the actus reus and mens rea elements. The appellant argued that there was insufficient evidence to establish his participation in a joint criminal enterprise. Additionally, he contended that the trial judge had erred in applying the principles of accessorial liability, which led to an excessive sentence. The prosecution maintained that the evidence was sufficient to prove the appellant's involvement and that the sentence was proportionate to the gravity of the crimes committed.

In delivering the judgment, the court examined the evidence presented and the legal principles applicable to joint criminal enterprise. The court found that the evidence was sufficient to establish the appellant's involvement in the criminal activities. It was determined that the trial judge had correctly applied the principles of accessorial liability, and the appellant's role in the enterprise was properly considered. The court rejected the appellant's argument regarding the severity of the sentence, finding that it was proportionate to the nature and circumstances of the offences. Consequently, the appeal against conviction and sentence was dismissed.

The final orders of the court were that the appellant's convictions and sentences be upheld. The appellant was required to serve the previously determined custodial sentence without any alteration.

Orders