R v Steele - [2022] NSWDC 603

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Steele [2022] NSWDC 603
Hearing dates: 28 November 2022, 29 November 2022, 30 November 2022
Date of orders: 2 December 2022
Decision date: 02 December 2022
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Haesler SC DCJ
Decision:
Count 1: Guilty of the offence of intimidation.
Count 2: Guilty of the offence of intimidation.
Count 3: Guilty of the offence of aggravated break and enter and commit a serious indicatable offence.

Catchwords:
CRIME – Intimidation - Aggravated Break and Enter
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Trial - Judge alone - Reasons of trial judge - conflict of evidence - reasons for accepting prosecution witness – reasons for rejecting accused’s evidence - each element proved beyond reasonable doubt
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Trial - Judge alone -
domestic violence - fundamental principles applied - assessing witness in “one and one” evidence cases – pattern of domestic violence behaviour- tendency reasoning – intimidation- intention - knowledge that conduct is likely to cause fear – break - consent or implied permission to enter

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007
Criminal Procedure Act 1987
Evidence Act 1995

Cases Cited:
Fox v Percy 2003) 214 CLR 118; [2003] HCA 22
IMM v The Queen (2016) 257 CLR 300; [2016] HCA 14
Kempe v Webbe [2003] ACTSC 7
Liberato v The Queen (1985) 159 CLR 507; [1985] HCA 66
McIlwraith v R [2017] NSWCCA 13
R v BA [2021] NSWCCA 191
R v Grant (2002) 55 NSWLR 80; [2002] NSWCCA 243

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Benjamin Steele (the accused)
Director of Public Prosecutions
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr J Lang (for the accused)
Solicitors:
Bannisters, Lawyers (for the accused)
Mr A Tonks (for Director of Public Prosecutions)

File Number(s): 2021/00221485

Judgment

Introduction

Benjamin Steel was committed for trial for three serious offences:

Count 1: That he, between the 27th day of July 2021 and the 28th day of July 2021, at Bombala in the state of NSW, did intimidate [the Complainant] with the intention of causing her to fear physical or mental harm: s 13 Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence Act 2007.

Count 2: That he, on the 29th day of July 2021 and the 28th day of July 2021 at Rosemeadow and elsewhere in the state of NSW, did intimidate [the Complainant] with the intention of causing her to fear physical or mental harm: s 13 Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence Act.

Count 3: That he, on the 30th day of July, at Bombala in the state of NSW, did break and enter the dwelling house of [the Complainant], at [XX], and then in the said dwelling house did commit a serious indictable offence, namely, intimidation in circumstances of aggravation, namely, he knew that there was a person present within the said dwelling house: se 112(2) Crimes Act 1900.

After receiving legal advice, Mr Steele waived his right to a trial by jury and elected for a trial by judge alone. The…

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 Steele

Details

AGLC: R v Steele [2022] NSWDC 603
Case: [2022] NSWDC 603
Decision Date: 02 December 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Steele, the defendant faced multiple charges including intimidation and aggravated break and enter. The case was heard by a judge sitting alone, without a jury, in a lower Australian court. The primary dispute involved the credibility of the evidence presented by both the prosecution and the defendant, as well as the interpretation of the relevant statutory provisions.

The court was required to decide whether the defendant's actions constituted intimidation and whether the defendant had unlawfully and with force entered a dwelling and committed a serious indictable offence. The legal issues encompassed the interpretation of the terms "intimidation" and "aggravated break and enter" under the applicable legislation, as well as the principles of assessing witness credibility in a case involving conflicting testimonies.

The court meticulously evaluated the evidence presented by both parties. The trial judge found the prosecution witnesses to be credible, while the defendant's evidence was deemed unreliable. The judge provided detailed reasons for accepting the prosecution's evidence, focusing on the consistency and plausibility of the accounts provided. Conversely, the judge outlined the reasons for rejecting the defendant's evidence, highlighting inconsistencies and lack of credibility. The judge concluded that each element of the charges was proven beyond reasonable doubt based on the evidence presented.

The court found the defendant guilty on all counts: intimidation on counts 1 and 2, and aggravated break and enter and commit a serious indictable offence on count 3. The detailed reasons provided by the judge underscore the careful consideration given to the assessment of evidence and the application of legal principles in reaching the verdict.

Orders

Orders of the court

Count 1: Guilty of the offence of intimidation.

Count 2: Guilty of the offence of intimidation.

Count 3: Guilty of the offence of aggravated break and enter and commit a serious indicatable offence.

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Steele [2022] NSWDC 603
Hearing dates:	28 November 2022, 29 November 2022, 30 November 2022
Date of orders:	2 December 2022
Decision date:	02 December 2022
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Haesler SC DCJ
Decision:	Count 1: Guilty of the offence of intimidation. Count 2: Guilty of the offence of intimidation. Count 3: Guilty of the offence of aggravated break and enter and commit a serious indicatable offence.
Catchwords:	CRIME – Intimidation - Aggravated Break and Enter CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Trial - Judge alone - Reasons of trial judge - conflict of evidence - reasons for accepting prosecution witness – reasons for rejecting accused’s evidence - each element proved beyond reasonable doubt CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Trial - Judge alone - domestic violence - fundamental principles applied - assessing witness in “one and one” evidence cases – pattern of domestic violence behaviour- tendency reasoning – intimidation- intention - knowledge that conduct is likely to cause fear – break - consent or implied permission to enter
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 Criminal Procedure Act 1987 Evidence Act 1995
Cases Cited:	Fox v Percy 2003) 214 CLR 118; [2003] HCA 22 IMM v The Queen (2016) 257 CLR 300; [2016] HCA 14 Kempe v Webbe [2003] ACTSC 7 Liberato v The Queen (1985) 159 CLR 507; [1985] HCA 66 McIlwraith v R [2017] NSWCCA 13 R v BA [2021] NSWCCA 191 R v Grant (2002) 55 NSWLR 80; [2002] NSWCCA 243
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Benjamin Steele (the accused) Director of Public Prosecutions
Representation:	Counsel: Mr J Lang (for the accused) Solicitors: Bannisters, Lawyers (for the accused) Mr A Tonks (for Director of Public Prosecutions)
File Number(s):	2021/00221485