Police v Kevin Francis Barlow (No 1) [2011] NSWLC 19

Police v Kevin Francis Barlow (No 1) [2011] NSWLC 19

The prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt, on the circumstantial evidence, that the accused deliberately lit both fires. The first fire was deliberately lit by combustible material placed on ceiling bearers, the accused had motive and opportunity, his conduct in response to the fire was unusual, and his record of interview was rejected. For the second fire, accidental causes were excluded, the accused had opportunity to attend the property before work, had been at the premises between fires, lied about important matters including foreclosure and visits, reacted unusually when told the house had burnt down, and the first fire could be used as co-incidence evidence. However, although...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 May 2011
Procedural Posture
Criminal Charges of Damaging or Destroying Property by Fire / Contested Hearing on Guilt; Principal Judgment
Outcome
The accused was found not guilty of the charges in sequences 1 and 3 and guilty of the charges in sequences 2 and 4.
Legal Topics
['damage Property by Fire' 'destroy Property by Fire' 'dishonesty With a View to Gain' 'circumstantial Evidence' 'co Incidence Evidence' 'accused Not Giving Evidence' 'lies and Consciousness of Guilt']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['damage Property by Fire' 'destroy Property by Fire' 'dishonesty With a View to Gain' 'circumstantial Evidence' 'co Incidence Evidence' 'accused Not Giving Evidence' 'lies and Consciousness of Guilt']

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 Charges of Damaging or Destroying Property by Fire / Contested Hearing on Guilt; Principal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused deliberately lit the fire on 12 May 2010 at the dwelling on 'Carinya'." "Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused deliberately lit the fire on 14 June 2010 at the dwelling on 'Carinya'." 'Whether the accused acted dishonestly with a view to making a gain for himself for the purposes of s 197(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1900.' 'Whether evidence concerning the first fire could be used as co-incidence evidence in considering the second fire.' 'Whether alleged lies by the accused could be used as evidence of consciousness of guilt or only as affecting credit.']

Ratio Decidendi

The prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt, on the circumstantial evidence, that the accused deliberately lit both fires. The first fire was deliberately lit by combustible material placed on ceiling bearers, the accused had motive and opportunity, his conduct in response to the fire was unusual, and his record of interview was rejected. For the second fire, accidental causes were excluded, the accused had opportunity to attend the property before work, had been at the premises between fires, lied about important matters including foreclosure and visits, reacted unusually when told the house had burnt down, and the first fire could be used as co-incidence evidence. However, although...

Court Disposition

The accused was found not guilty of the charges in sequences 1 and 3 and guilty of the charges in sequences 2 and 4.

Orders

  • ['Sequence 1: not guilty.' 'Sequence 2: guilty.' 'Sequence 3: not guilty.' 'Sequence 4: guilty.' 'Counsel were to be heard as to sentence.']