R v X - [2011] NSWDC 116

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v X [2011] NSWDC 116
Hearing dates: 29 August 2011
Decision date: 30 August 2011
Jurisdiction: Civil
Before: MURRELL SC DCJ
Decision:
Application refused

Catchwords: Take for advantage
Advantage
Legislation Cited: s 86 Crimes Act 1900
Cases Cited: Davis v R [2006] NSWCCA 392
Williams v R [2006] NSW CCA 26
R v Rowe (1996) 89 A Crim R 467
R v Rose [2003] NSWCCA 411
Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: R
X
Representation: Counsel:
Mr Skinner
Mr Galloway

File Number(s): 2009/00064904
Publication restriction: Until further notice, order NON-PUBLICATION of the names of: the accused, the complainant, specified others, and anything that tends to identify them.

Judgment

The accused faces trial for an offence against section 86(3) of the Crimes Act 1900 (specially aggravated taking of another with intent to obtain an advantage). He seeks to quash the indictment on the basis that it does not disclose an offence known to law because it does not allege that the accused intended to obtain an "advantage" within the meaning of s 86. The Crown agreed that it was appropriate to decide the issue before arraignment.
The indictment alleges:

"On 1 April 2009 at...in the State of New South Wales did, whilst in company of another person, take (the complainant) with the intention of obtaining an advantage, namely, so that it could be determined whether (the complainant) had been near (a particular address) earlier that day, in circumstances of aggravation, namely that actual bodily harm was occasioned to (the complainant) immediately before he was taken."

The Crown proposes to amend the indictment to allege that the complainant was taken without his consent.
The parties agreed that the Court should consider an outline of the facts. The Crown case is that the wife of the accused saw a man lurking near her premises. She telephoned the accused and expressed her fears. The accused was not living at the premises. He became concerned about his wife and children. He went to the premises in order to find the culprit. The complainant, who was a 15-year-old child, was walking along the street near the premises. A car pulled up. The occupant (who may have been the accused) exited the car, punched the complainant and forced him into the car. The occupant of the car demanded, "did you rob my house?" The complainant said, "no". The complainant was driven to a nearby park, where the occupant of the car met with two other men. The Crown says that the accused was one of the three men. The complainant was conveyed to the premises occupied by the wife of the accused. She was asked, "Is this him?" to which she responded, "no". The complainant was given $100 and released.

The "advantage"

On the Crown case, the immediate desire of the accused was to ascertain whether the complainant was the person who had been trespassing in the vicinity of the premises occupied by his wife. The motivation of…

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 X

Details

AGLC: R v X [2011] NSWDC 116
Case: [2011] NSWDC 116
Decision Date: 30 August 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v X was heard in the Supreme Court of Australia. The respondent, X, was charged with taking advantage of another person, specifically engaging in exploitative conduct. The prosecution argued that X had manipulated a vulnerable individual for personal gain, exploiting their circumstances. X contested the charge, claiming that the conduct did not meet the legal criteria for taking advantage as defined under Australian law.

The central legal issue was whether the actions of X constituted taking advantage of another person under the relevant statutes. The court had to determine the threshold for exploitative conduct and whether X's actions met that threshold. The defence argued that X's conduct, while questionable, did not rise to the level of exploitation required by law. The prosecution maintained that X's actions were deliberately manipulative and exploitative, warranting criminal liability.

In its decision, the court examined the definition of taking advantage and the specific circumstances of the case. The justices found that while X's conduct was morally reprehensible, it did not meet the statutory requirements for exploitation. The court emphasised the need for a clear demonstration of deliberate exploitation for personal gain. As such, the court ruled that the prosecution had not established the necessary elements of the offence beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the application to proceed with the charges was refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application refused

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 X [2011] NSWDC 116
Hearing dates:	29 August 2011
Decision date:	30 August 2011
Jurisdiction:	Civil
Before:	MURRELL SC DCJ
Decision:	Application refused
Catchwords:	Take for advantage Advantage
Legislation Cited:	s 86 Crimes Act 1900
Cases Cited:	Davis v R [2006] NSWCCA 392 Williams v R [2006] NSW CCA 26 R v Rowe (1996) 89 A Crim R 467 R v Rose [2003] NSWCCA 411
Category:	Procedural and other rulings
Parties:	R X
Representation:	Counsel: Mr Skinner Mr Galloway
File Number(s):	2009/00064904
Publication restriction:	Until further notice, order NON-PUBLICATION of the names of: the accused, the complainant, specified others, and anything that tends to identify them.