R v White

Case [2021] NSWDC 577

District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v White [2021] NSWDC 577
Hearing dates: 25 October 2021
Date of orders: 26 October 2021
Decision date: 26 October 2021
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Abadee DCJ
Decision:

See paragraph 71

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL LAW – conviction appeal – going onto or remaining on running lines and intentionally damaging train carriages – whether appellant intentionally or recklessly encouraged or assisted in damage to train carriages

Legislation Cited:

Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 (NSW) s 11

Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) s 195

Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) s 138

Graffiti Control Act 2008 (NSW) s 4

Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 (NSW) ss 35, 36

Passenger Transport (General) Regulation 2017 (NSW) s 68J

Cases Cited:

Charara v R (2006) 164 A Crim R 39

De Silva v The Queen (2019) 268 CLR 57

Fox v Perry (2003) 214 CLR 118

Grajewski v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (2019) 264 CLR 470

Liberato v The Queen (1985) 159 CLR 507

Lunney v DPP [2021] NSWCCA 186

M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487

R v Murray (1987) 11 NSWLR 12

Walton v Salmon (NSWSC, Loveday J, 24 April 1992)

Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (respondent)
Lukas White (appellant)
Representation:

Counsel:
Mr E Freelander (solicitor advocate) for the Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW)
Appellant in person

Solicitor:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (NSW)
File Number(s): 2017/00367447
Publication restriction: Nil
 Decision under appeal 
Court or tribunal:
Local Court of New South Wales
Jurisdiction:
Criminal
Citation:

Unreported

Date of Decision:
26 April 2021
Before:
Magistrate M Connell
File Number(s):
2017/00367447

Judgment

Background

  1. The appellant appeals against convictions against him by the Sutherland Local Court on 26 April 2021, arising from conduct between 12:01am and 12:11am on 5 December 2017 at Sutherland. The first offence (seq 2) was that contrary to s 68J(1)(b) of the Passenger Transport (General) Regulation 2017 (NSW) (‘the Regulation’), he had gone on to or into or remained on or in running lines. The second offence (seq 5) was that contrary to s 195(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), he intentionally damaged property, being carriages 5255, 5256 and 6256 that formed part of a Tangara-class rolling stock train, being the property of Sydney Trains.

  2. The appellant was acquitted of two other charges associated with the above conduct; being driving a vehicle (belonging to his father) in excess of the speeding limit, contrary to road rule 20; and driving the said vehicle through a red traffic light (road rule 59). This alleged conduct had occurred after the offending conduct.

  3. The appeal is brought pursuant to s 11 of the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 (NSW).

  4. On the appeal, the Crown put forward the evidence before the Magistrate (Exhibit A). The Crown also played to the Court film taken from Exhibit 3 from the Local Court, without objection. The appellant, who represented himself in the appeal (with a McKenzie friend, without objection by the Crown), did not…

Continue reading R v White

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v White [2021] NSWDC 577
Case
[2021] NSWDC 577
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v White, the appellant sought to appeal his conviction for engaging in activities that endangered train operations. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, where the appellant contested his conviction on charges related to going onto or remaining on running lines and intentionally damaging train carriages. Specifically, the appellant was found guilty of recklessly encouraging or assisting in the damage to train carriages. He argued that he did not intend to cause any harm and that his actions did not amount to the reckless encouragement or assistance as charged.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the appellant's actions constituted recklessly encouraging or assisting in the damage to train carriages. The court had to examine the relevant statutory provisions and determine whether the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant acted with the requisite mens rea for the offence. The court also needed to consider the context and circumstances in which the appellant's actions occurred, including his state of mind and intent at the time of the offence.

In reaching its decision, the court examined the evidence presented, including witness statements, CCTV footage, and the appellant's own admissions. The court found that the prosecution had established that the appellant was present at the scene and had engaged in activities that were likely to cause harm to the train carriages. The court held that the appellant's actions were reckless and that he had encouraged or assisted in the damage to the carriages. The court rejected the appellant's argument that his actions were not intentional or reckless, finding that the evidence supported a finding of recklessness on the part of the appellant. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

The court ordered that the appellant's conviction stand as decided by the trial court. The court did not alter the sentence imposed by the trial court and confirmed that the appellant was to serve his sentence as previously determined. The court's decision was based on a careful examination of the evidence and a consideration of the statutory provisions relevant to the offence. The court found that the prosecution had proved the necessary elements of the offence beyond reasonable doubt, and the appeal was dismissed accordingly.

Orders

Orders of the court

See paragraph 71

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.