R v Wayne Robert Hunt
[2013] ACTSC 119
•22 April 2013
R v WAYNE ROBERT HUNT
[2013] ACTSC 119 (22 April 2013)
EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT
No. SCC 62 of 2012
Judge: Higgins CJ
Supreme Court of the ACT
Date: 22 April 2013
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE )
) No. SCC 62 of 2012
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY )
R
v
WAYNE ROBERT HUNT
ORDER
Judge: Higgins CJ
Date: 22 April 2013
Place: Canberra
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
The charge be dismissed and the accused found not guilty.
In this matter the indictment charges the accused, Wayne Robert Hunt, with causing intentionally damage to property belonging to someone else. The property in question is a screen door to premises described as XXX Windeyer Court.
The evidence is sufficient to say that there was an argument between the accused and Abu Dumbuya and his brother Ali which, on the evidence that I have before me, certainly was not their fault, and seems to have been occasioned by the accused taking umbrage at the fact they were speaking in their language, Krio, which is a Creole version of English used, apparently, in Sierra Leone. As I say, that is certainly not their fault, and insofar as Mr Hunt took exception to that he was wrong to do so.
They went inside the unit at XXX, and it is not quite clear to me how many people looked through the keyhole. There seems to have been a procession of people looking through the keyhole from time to time, but in any event what was seen as a result of that was a person answering the description of the accused, which I will assume to be him, and a person answering to the general description of his son, who apparently had also independently had a further argument with one of the two boys about them hassling his father. That does not mean anything about that having occurred, and the likelihood is it did not.
But in any event, he certainly had taken umbrage. There was another person called Paul who apparently was also present who had also attacked the unit a week or so before and caused damage to the same door. What damage he caused is not entirely clear to me. It certainly included and comprised a fracturing of the inner mesh, perhaps in a way that tore it as if it was torn with a knife, perhaps not, but in any event certainly there was a tear in that mesh.
As to whether he had damaged the frame or ‘grill’ of the door, that is not clear. He may have done so. It is hard to tell from the photographs whether the deformation of the mesh of the grille was made worse by this incident outside, but let us assume in favour of the Crown that it was.
The difficulty is that there were two people who were reasonably to be suspected of hitting and kicking at the door, and those people are the accused and his son. It may also be the other person. We do not quite have any clear idea of where he was, but there is no doubt he would have been quite happy to join in, and apparently had been observed to have been yelling abuse at least.
So we have, in any event, two people who can be said to have been attacking the door, either with their arms or their feet. Now, as far as observation of anybody using their feet on the door is concerned, I have to say that cannot be accepted in the terms of what you could see. You could assume that from the sound, no doubt, and you could assume that from seeing people outside who were yelling abuse, but it certainly cannot be regarded as capable of being established beyond a reasonable doubt as to whether feet were being used by any particular person or indeed persons.
In any event, let us assume that there was kicking by somebody. Which of them was it? We also have, in one way, a red herring of the knife being present. That was originally put by the Crown as being the explanation for the slash or tear in the inner wire mesh, but I take it that has been effectively abandoned, particularly in view of the fact that damage had been seen, at least to that extent, by police earlier, no doubt at the hands of “Paul”, whoever Paul may be otherwise.
That presence of the knife is to that extent, a side issue, albeit that one of the witnesses did say that the damage to the door had been inflicted with the knife. That, again, is an example, I think, of assumptions being made. A knife was present and the door was damaged, therefore one must connect with the other. That is not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
All I can say is that this incident certainly reflects no credit on the accused or any member of his family or indeed “Paul”, whoever he may be, but that is not for me to pass judgment on at this time, because the charge is of damaging property. That means that not only must property be damaged in this attack, it must have been done deliberately, it must have been done intentionally, and it must be done more effectively and relevantly by the accused.
Merely to hit the door is not sufficient, even if it is kicked. It must be damaged. And I am simply unable to say, on the evidence as it has been presented, how that damage was caused. That is to say, whether it was caused by (a) the accused, or (b) his son, or perhaps even by Paul.
In those circumstances the case has simply been not made out beyond reasonable doubt, and I have to dismiss the charge and therefore find the accused not guilty on the indictment as presented.
I certify that the preceding twelve (12) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of his Honour, Chief Justice Higgins.
Associate:
Date: 21 June 2013
Counsel for the Crown: Ms A Knibbs
Solicitor for the Crown: ACT Director of Public Prosecutions
Counsel for the Defendant: Ms K Bolas
Solicitor for the Respondent: Kim Bolas Criminal Lawyers
Date of hearing: 22 April 2013
Date of judgment: 22 April 2013
0
0
0