R v Little [2008] NSWDC 311

R v Little [2008] NSWDC 311

The court concluded that, based on the evidence, including the presence and quality of the accused's fingerprints on the rear door at a point of attempted entry, the lack of any rational or reasonable alternative hypothesis supported by evidence, and the circumstances of the break, enter and steal, the only rational inference was that the accused was guilty of the charged offence. Counsel for the accused’s alternative hypotheses lacked any supporting evidence and, in the absence of evidence peculiarly within the accused’s knowledge, could not be regarded as rational or reasonable. Thus, the elements of aggravated break enter and steal were established beyond reasonable doubt.

Parties
Prosecution: The Queen; Accused: Paul Anthony Little
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 November 2008
Procedural Posture
Criminal Trial / Judgment After Trial by Judge Alone
Outcome
Guilty
Legal Topics
Aggravated Break Enter and Steal, Circumstantial Evidence, Fingerprint Evidence, Burden of Proof, Right to Silence, Comment on Failure to Give Evidence
Criminal Law Aggravated Break Enter and Steal Circumstantial Evidence Fingerprint Evidence Burden of Proof Right to Silence Comment on Failure to Give Evidence

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Queen

Prosecution

Paul Anthony Little

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Trial / Judgment After Trial by Judge Alone

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the accused committed aggravated break enter and steal under s 112(2) of the Crimes Act 1900
  2. 2 Whether there was a rational or reasonable alternative hypothesis consistent with innocence given circumstantial evidence
  3. 3 Whether the absence of the accused's evidence allows adverse inferences or diminishes alternative hypotheses

Ratio Decidendi

The court concluded that, based on the evidence, including the presence and quality of the accused's fingerprints on the rear door at a point of attempted entry, the lack of any rational or reasonable alternative hypothesis supported by evidence, and the circumstances of the break, enter and steal, the only rational inference was that the accused was guilty of the charged offence. Counsel for the accused’s alternative hypotheses lacked any supporting evidence and, in the absence of evidence peculiarly within the accused’s knowledge, could not be regarded as rational or reasonable. Thus, the elements of aggravated break enter and steal were established beyond reasonable doubt.

Court Disposition

Guilty

Orders

  • The accused, Paul Anthony Little, is found guilty of aggravated break enter and steal contrary to s 112(2) Crimes Act 1900.