R v Scott Owen BROWN [2009] NSWDC 112

R v Scott Owen BROWN [2009] NSWDC 112

Although P and M committed the break, enter and steal in company, intentional damage and intimidation, the Crown did not prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was a party to a joint criminal enterprise. The evidence supported an available rational inference that the accused, while intoxicated, went to the premises to exchange lights for drugs and was present otherwise than as a joint criminal participant, with P and M acting independently. The alleged lies did not establish consciousness of guilt regarding joint criminal enterprise, and there was in any event insufficient evidence that any common purpose extended to the incidental crimes of intentional damage or intimidation.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 May 2009
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Judge Alone Trial Verdict
Outcome
Verdicts of not guilty entered on each of the three offences tried.
Legal Topics
['break and Enter a Dwelling House and Commit Larceny in Company' 'joint Criminal Enterprise' 'extended Joint Criminal Enterprise' 'intentional Damage to Property' 'intimidation' 'circumstantial Evidence' 'lies as Consciousness of Guilt' 'right to Silence']
['criminal Law'] ['break and Enter a Dwelling House and Commit Larceny in Company' 'joint Criminal Enterprise' 'extended Joint Criminal Enterprise' 'intentional Damage to Property' 'intimidation' 'circumstantial Evidence' 'lies as Consciousness of Guilt' 'right to Silence']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Judge Alone Trial Verdict

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the only available rational inference was that the accused was party to a joint criminal enterprise to break, enter and steal from the complainant's premises." 'If the accused was party to the foundational joint criminal enterprise, whether intentional damage and intimidation were within the scope of the common purpose.' 'Whether alleged lies in the electronically recorded interview evidenced consciousness of guilt in relation to participation in a joint criminal enterprise.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although P and M committed the break, enter and steal in company, intentional damage and intimidation, the Crown did not prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was a party to a joint criminal enterprise. The evidence supported an available rational inference that the accused, while intoxicated, went to the premises to exchange lights for drugs and was present otherwise than as a joint criminal participant, with P and M acting independently. The alleged lies did not establish consciousness of guilt regarding joint criminal enterprise, and there was in any event insufficient evidence that any common purpose extended to the incidental crimes of intentional damage or intimidation.

Court Disposition

Verdicts of not guilty entered on each of the three offences tried.

Orders

  • ['Verdict of not guilty on break and enter a dwelling house and commit larceny in the company of P and M.' 'Verdict of not guilty on intentionally damaging a freezer, carpet and wardrobe the property of the complainant.' 'Verdict of not guilty on intimidating the complainant with the intention of causing her to fear...