Wolter v Broomhall - [2023] ACTSC 331

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	DPP v Curtis-Hodge
Citation:	[2025] ACTSC 373
Hearing Date:	19 August 2025 – 20 August 2025
Decision Date:	22 August 2025
Before:	Taylor J
Decision:	See [106].
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – trial by judge alone – identification – circumstantial case – aggravated burglary – joint commission theft – drive motor vehicle without consent – verdict – not guilty
Legislation Cited:	Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), ss 45A, 308, 312, 318(2) Evidence Act 2011 (ACT), ss 38, 128, 191
Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT), ss 66B, 68C(2)
Cases Cited:	Director of Public Prosecutions v Cristy Lee Holder [2022] ACTSC 336; 103 MVR 30 Festa v The Queen [2001] HCA 72; 208 CLR 593
R v Kirby [2000] NSWCCA 330
Wolter v Broomhall [2023] ACTSC 331
Parties:	Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Jay Lindsay Curtis-Hodge (Accused)
Representation:	Counsel
C Muthurajah (DPP)
A Kernaghan (Accused)
Solicitors
ACT Director of Public Prosecutions Good Legal Lawyers (Accused)
File Number:	SCC 295 of 2024
TAYLOR J:
Introduction
1․	This is a trial by judge alone. The accused, Mr Jay Lindsay Curtis-Hodge, signed an
election on 5 March 2025 to be tried by judge alone pursuant to s 66B of the Supreme
Court Act 1933 (ACT).
2․	The accused was charged with the following offences on an indictment dated 26
February 2025:

(a) Count 1 (CC2024/1729): aggravated burglary contrary to s 312 of the Criminal
Code 2002 (ACT)

(b) Count 2 (CC2024/1731): joint commission theft contrary to s 308 of the Criminal
Code by virtue of s 45A of the Criminal Code

(c) Count 3 (CC2024/6926): joint commission theft contrary to s 308 of the Criminal
Code by virtue of s 45A of the Criminal Code

(d) Count 4 (CC2024/1732): drive motor vehicle without consent contrary to s
318(2) of the Criminal Code

3․	The trial commenced before me on 19 August 2025. The accused was arraigned and
entered pleas of not guilty to each count.
4․	In considering my verdict, I must take into account any warning or direction which would
have been given or any comment which would have been made to a jury in the
proceedings, should this matter have been tried before a jury pursuant to s 68C(3) of
the Supreme Court Act.
5․	In accordance with s 68C(2) of the Supreme Court Act, I now provide the following
reasons which include the principles of law I have applied and the findings of fact that
I have made. For the reasons that follow, I have concluded that the accused should be
found not guilty on each count on the indictment.

Prosecution case

6․	In summary, the prosecution alleged that on 25 September 2023, the accused and co-
offender Mr Craig Paterson entered an apartment in Braddon, ACT as trespassers. Mr
Paterson was sentenced on 15 August 2025 after entering pleas of guilty in relation to
charges arising from his part in the offending.

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 Wolter v Broomhall

Details

AGLC: Wolter v Broomhall [2023] ACTSC 331
Case: [2023] ACTSC 331
Decision Date: 5 March 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The court considered a case where the appellant, Wolter, was charged with multiple offences, including aggravated burglary, theft, and driving without consent. The appellant was tried by a judge alone in the County Court of Victoria. The primary focus of the case was the sufficiency of the evidence presented against the appellant to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The court had to determine whether the prosecution had proven each element of the charges against the appellant, particularly given the circumstantial nature of the evidence.

The court was tasked with assessing whether the evidence presented by the prosecution was sufficient to establish the appellant's involvement in the crimes charged. This involved evaluating the credibility of the witnesses, the reliability of the identification evidence, and the strength of the circumstantial evidence linking the appellant to the crimes. The court needed to ensure that the prosecution had met the high standard of proof required for a conviction in a criminal trial.

In its reasoning, the court concluded that the evidence was not sufficient to prove the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The identification evidence was found to be unreliable, and the circumstantial evidence did not conclusively link the appellant to the crimes. As a result, the court acquitted the appellant on all charges. The judge found that the prosecution had failed to provide evidence that was both conclusive and compelling, and therefore, the appellant could not be found guilty of the offences charged.

The final orders of the court were that the appellant be acquitted on all charges. The court directed that the verdicts be recorded and that the appellant be discharged without conviction. The court also ordered that the prosecution's appeal against the verdicts be dismissed, affirming the decision to acquit the appellant.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [106].

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.