Williams v Power - [2016] ACTSC 293

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	Williams v Power
Citation:	[2016] ACTSC 293
Hearing Date:	25 May 2016
DecisionDate:	6 October 2016
Before:	Burns J
Decision:	The appeals are dismissed and the convictions and sentences of the Magistrate are confirmed.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Appeal from Magistrates Court – proprety offences – burglary and theft – doctrine of recent possession – appeals dismissed.
Cases Cited:	Connelly v Allan [2011] ACTSC 170 Gilson v The Queen [1991] HCA 24; 172 CLR 353 McCarthy v The Queen [1985] WAR 84 R v Smale (Unreported, New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal, Lee, Maxwell and McInerney JJ, 15 August 1986) Slipper v Turner [2015] ACTSC 27 Trainer v The King [1906] HCA 50; 4 CLR 126
Parties:	Thomas Williams (Appellant) David Power (First Respondent) Andrew McCoola (Second Respondent)
Representation:	Counsel Mr J Lawton (Appellant) Ms A Jamieson-Williams (First and Second Respondents)
Solicitors Aboriginal Legal Services NSW/ACT (Appellant) ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (First and Second Respondents)
File Number:	SCA 78 of 2015
Decision under appeal:	Court: ACT Magistrates Court Before: Special Magistrate Hunter Date of Decision: 24 August 2015; 14 December 2015 Case Title: Power v Williams Court File Numbers: CC No 4205 of 2014

BURNS J:

On 25 August 2015, the appellant was convicted by a Magistrate of the following offences which, for convenience, I will refer to by their Magistrate Court reference numbers:

(a)a burglary on 1 November 2014 at residential premises in White Crescent Campbell, being charge CC2014/11097;
(b)theft of property to the value of $1,400.00, the property of JT, taken from the premises in White Crescent during the burglary, being charge CC2014/11098;
(c)theft of property to the value of $100.00, the property of DU, also taken during the course of the burglary in White Crescent, being charge CC2014/11099;
(d)a burglary on 12 November 2014 at Rivett St Hackett, being charge CC2014/11397; and
(e)theft of property of value unknown belonging to GL taken during the burglary at Hackett, being charge CC2014/11398.

On 14 December 2015, the Magistrate sentenced the appellant as follows:

(a)for the offence of burglary (CC2014/11097), he was convicted and sentenced to 12 months imprisonment;
(b)for the associated offence of theft of property belonging to JT, (CC2014/11098), he was convicted and sentenced to 6 months imprisonment, of which 3 months was cumulative upon the sentence for burglary (CC2014/11097);
(c)for the second associated offence of theft of property belonging to DU, (CC2014/11099), he was convicted and sentenced to 6 months imprisonment to be served concurrently with the sentence imposed on the charge of burglary (CC2014/11097);
(d)for the offence of burglary (CC2014/11397), he was convicted and sentenced to 12 months imprisonment; and
(e)for the associated offence of theft (CC2014/11398), he was convicted and sentenced to 6 months imprisonment, of which 2 months was cumulative upon the sentence for burglary (CC2014/11397).

By an Amended Notice of Appeal lodged on 4 May 2016 the appellant appealed from the convictions and sentences…

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 Williams v Power

Details

AGLC: Williams v Power [2016] ACTSC 293
Case: [2016] ACTSC 293
Decision Date: 6 October 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Williams v Power was heard in the higher court following an appeal by the defendant from a decision of the Magistrates Court. The appellant, Williams, was convicted of burglary and theft, and the matter before the court involved a challenge to the legal basis and procedural correctness of the lower court's decision. The appeal questioned the application of the doctrine of recent possession and the sufficiency of the evidence presented in the Magistrates Court. The appellant sought to overturn his convictions on the basis that the evidence was insufficient to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt, and that there were procedural errors in the handling of the case.

The court was required to determine whether the lower court correctly applied the legal principles governing the doctrine of recent possession and whether the evidence was sufficient to uphold the convictions. In considering these issues, the court reviewed the application of the doctrine, which presumes that an individual who is found in possession of recently stolen property is the thief, unless they can provide a satisfactory explanation for their possession. The court also examined the sufficiency of the evidence, including witness testimonies and the circumstances surrounding the appellant's possession of the stolen items.

The higher court found that the lower court had correctly applied the doctrine of recent possession and that the evidence was sufficient to support the appellant's convictions. The court held that the appellant's possession of the stolen goods, coupled with other incriminating circumstances, was enough to establish the charges against him. The court further found that there were no procedural errors that would warrant overturning the convictions. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed, and the convictions and sentences imposed by the Magistrates Court were upheld.

The appeals are dismissed, and the convictions and sentences of the Magistrate are confirmed.

Orders

Orders of the court

The appeals are dismissed and the convictions and sentences of the Magistrate are confirmed.

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.