R v Si
[2019] ACTSC 376
•31 May 2019
SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: | R v SI |
Citation: | [2019] ACTSC 376 |
Hearing Dates: | 28-31 May 2019 |
DecisionDate: | 31 May 2019 |
Before: | Burns J |
Decision: | See [9] |
Catchwords: | CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Trial – trial by judge alone – verdict – aggravated robbery – intentional threat to kill – circumstantial case – whether the prosecution could establish that it was the accused who was one of the people who committed these offences |
Parties: | The Queen (Crown) SI (Offender) |
Representation: | Counsel M Fernandez (Crown) B Morrisroe (Offender) |
| Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Sharman Robertson (Offender) | |
File Number: | SCC 279 of 2018 |
BURNS J:
On Tuesday this week, 28 May 2019, the accused was arraigned on an indictment dated 30 November 2018 containing two counts. I will refer to the counts by abbreviations. The first count is a count of aggravated robbery (CC18/10691) and the second count is one alleging that he made an intentional threat to kill DJ (CC18/11149).
It is not in dispute that these offences occurred. The only matter which was raised by the defence in the course of the trial was whether the prosecution could establish that it was the accused who was one of the people who committed these offences.
The Crown acknowledges that the case against the accused is circumstantial. That is that there is no direct evidence that he was a person who was involved in the commission of these offences. There is no dispute that at about 8.00 pm on 22 August 2018 two people wearing clothing which disguised their features entered a supermarket in Kambah and committed an aggravated robbery. There is also no dispute that in the course of committing that robbery, one of the two robbers made a threat to kill the proprietor of the supermarket.
There has clearly been a very diligent and thorough investigation of this offence. The evidence put before the Court was quite compendious. Most of it was not the subject of any sort of dispute. The question really is what does one make of the evidence. The Crown identified a number of circumstances which it submits, taken as a whole, would establish beyond reasonable doubt that it was the accused who was one of the two people who committed the offence of aggravated robbery and that it was the accused who committed the offence of making a threat to kill.
I could go through each of the circumstances that were relied upon by the Crown but, in my opinion, there is no point in doing so. In a circumstantial case, the Crown must prove that there is no inference reasonably available on the evidence other than the guilt of the accused. In other words, in the present case the Crown must prove that the evidence leads to the inference that it was the accused who was one of the robbers and that it was he who made the threat to kill the proprietor of the supermarket.
Another way of putting that is the evidence must exclude the reasonable possibility that two persons other than the accused were those who were present and committed the offence of aggravated robbery. There is certainly a very considerable amount of suspicion which falls upon the accused as a consequence of the evidence before me.
In a circumstantial evidence case, it is important to look at all of the evidence in its totality. As I have said, I could go through each of the circumstances referred to by the Crown and I could refer to the limitations that clearly attach to each of the circumstances but, as I have said, I see little point in doing so.
Having given close consideration to all of the evidence, I am simply not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the Crown has excluded the reasonable possibility that the accused was not one of the two people who committed the aggravated robbery and, of course, then the offence of making a threat to kill.
Orders
In those circumstances, the accused is entitled to be acquitted with respect to these offences and I will enter verdicts of not guilty.
The accused will be discharged from custody.
| I certify that the preceding ten [10] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of his Honour Justice Burns. Associate: Date: |
0
0
0