R v Bayliss [2020] NSWDC 768

R v Bayliss [2020] NSWDC 768

The Court was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was the intruder because Ms Bain's identification, approached with special caution, was reliable and was strengthened by compelling circumstantial evidence: the intruder wore the accused's balaclava, the getaway vehicle matched a vehicle the accused used at the relevant time, and the accused attempted to influence Ms Hodge's evidence, demonstrating consciousness of guilt. Count 1 was not proved because the Crown did not establish a break. Counts 2, 3 and 4 were proved because the accused entered with intent to rob while armed with a firearm and knowing persons were present, and recklessly wounded Jake McDonald and Paul...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 August 2020
Procedural Posture
Criminal Trial, Judge Alone / Verdict After Trial
Outcome
Count 1 not guilty; Counts 2, 3 and 4 guilty.
Legal Topics
['judge Alone Trial' 'identification Evidence' 'picture Identification' 'circumstantial Identification Evidence' 'post Offence Conduct' 'consciousness of Guilt' 'admissions' 'break and Enter' 'reckless Wounding' 'robbery']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'evidence'] ['judge Alone Trial' 'identification Evidence' 'picture Identification' 'circumstantial Identification Evidence' 'post Offence Conduct' 'consciousness of Guilt' 'admissions' 'break and Enter' 'reckless Wounding' 'robbery']

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 Trial, Judge Alone / Verdict After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the accused was proved beyond reasonable doubt to be the intruder who entered the unit at 2/15 Bogan Road Booker Bay on 8 June 2014.' 'Whether the Crown proved a break for Count 1.' 'Whether the accused entered the dwelling house with intent to commit robbery while knowing persons were present and while armed with a firearm for Count 2.' 'Whether the accused recklessly wounded Jake McDonald and Paul Johnson for Counts 3 and 4.' 'What weight should be given to identification evidence from Mr McDonald and Ms Bain, including delay, Facebook identification, photo identification and possible displacement effect.' 'What inferences could be drawn from the balaclava DNA evidence, access to a matching getaway vehicle, gaol calls and alleged consciousness of guilt.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was the intruder because Ms Bain's identification, approached with special caution, was reliable and was strengthened by compelling circumstantial evidence: the intruder wore the accused's balaclava, the getaway vehicle matched a vehicle the accused used at the relevant time, and the accused attempted to influence Ms Hodge's evidence, demonstrating consciousness of guilt. Count 1 was not proved because the Crown did not establish a break. Counts 2, 3 and 4 were proved because the accused entered with intent to rob while armed with a firearm and knowing persons were present, and recklessly wounded Jake McDonald and Paul...

Court Disposition

Count 1 not guilty; Counts 2, 3 and 4 guilty.

Orders

  • ['In relation to Count 1, I find the accused not guilty.' 'In relation to Count 2, I find the accused guilty.' 'In relation to Count 3, I find the accused guilty.' 'In relation to Count 4, I find the accused guilty.']