The Queen v Craig Anthony Reed - [2002] ACTSC 4

The Queen v Craig Anthony Reed

[2002] ACTSC 4 (19 February 2002)

CATCHWORDS

CRIMINAL LAW – armed robbery – trial by judge alone – identification by stranger victim at line up and in court - evidence of possible accomplice – effect of Evidence Act 1995 – need for caution in evaluating such evidence – no allegation of joint criminal enterprise – evidence consistent with description of clothing of possible accomplice and not of accused – finding of not guilty.

Supreme Court Act 1933, s 68B, s 68C

Evidence Act 1995

R v Alexander (1981) 145 CLR 395

R v Lee [2001] ACTSC 133

No. SC 108 of 2001

Judge: Miles CJ

Supreme Court of the ACT

Date: 19 February 2002

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE )

) No. SC 108 of 2001

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY )

THE QUEEN

CRAIG ANTHONY REED

ORDER

Judge: Miles CJ

Date of decision: 24 December 2001

Date of judgment: 19 February 2002

Place: Canberra

THE COURT FINDS THAT:

The accused is not guilty.

Craig Anthony Reed pleaded not guilty to a single count of armed robbery on 11 December 2000. The trial took place from 17 to 19 December 2001 by judge alone. I was satisfied that the conditions for trial by judge alone had been met: see Supreme Court Act 1933, s 68B (the Supreme Court Act). On 24 December 2001 I found the accused not guilty. I said that I would give reasons later. These are the reasons.
The prosecution case was that the accused and another man, Simon Joel Baran, went to a car park at the rear of a shopping centre, known as the Lanyon Marketplace, at about 9.00 pm on 11 December 2000. They got out of the car and shortly afterwards the accused approached Ms Chantelle Manns, who was walking across the car park towards a rear entrance to one of the shops. She was carrying a purse in her hand. The accused asked her for the time. She did not reply. She entered the shop, made a purchase and came out a couple of minutes later. As she was crossing the car park to return to her car, the accused again approached, presented a knife, threatened her with the knife and demanded her money. She handed over the purse and the accused fled. It was part of the prosecution case that earlier in the evening, at the accused’s house, the accused and Simon Baran had been heard discussing plans to obtain money, that they were absent from the house at about the time the robbery was committed, and that shortly after that time they returned to the house expressing their disappointment at the meagre proceeds of the robbery.
The accused’s case was simple. He denied having anything to do with the robbery and denied any discussion with any person relating to a proposed robbery. He denied accompanying Simon Baran to the shops and denied saying anything about the proceeds of any robbery. His case was…

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 The Queen v Craig Anthony Reed

Details

AGLC: The Queen v Craig Anthony Reed [2002] ACTSC 4
Case: [2002] ACTSC 4
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Craig Anthony Reed was found not guilty of armed robbery by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory. The trial took place from 17 to 19 December 2001 by judge alone. The court found that the accused did not commit the robbery, despite evidence suggesting that the accused and Simon Joel Baran had discussed obtaining money earlier in the evening and had been absent from the accused's house at the time of the robbery. The court heard evidence from Ms Chantelle Manns, who identified the accused as her assailant, but found her identification to be unreliable due to inconsistencies in her descriptions of the assailant's clothing and the fact that she did not identify the accused in a police line up. The court also heard evidence from Simon Baran, who claimed that the accused had committed the robbery and that he had acted as an accessory after the fact. The court found that the evidence of Simon Baran was unreliable and that the prosecution had failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was the person who committed the robbery. The court found the accused not guilty and noted that the evidence was consistent with the description of the clothing of a possible accomplice and not of the accused.

Orders