R v Perrine (No 2) [2021] NSWDC 828

R v Perrine (No 2) [2021] NSWDC 828

The Crown did not prove beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Perrine used illegally diverted, unmetered electricity: although charging his phone established some use of electricity, the reasonable possibility that it used legal metered electricity was not excluded. The Crown also failed to prove the required intention or awareness that he had no entitlement to use the electricity, and did not negative duress. Accordingly, three of the four identified elements were not satisfied.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 June 2021
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Determination of S 166 Related Offence After Jury Verdict on Cultivation Charge
Outcome
Accused found not guilty of the s 166 related offence of use or consume electricity without authority under s 64 of the Electricity Supply Act 1995.
Legal Topics
['use or Consumption of Electricity Without Authority' 'theft of Electricity' 'illegal Electricity Bypass' 'intention' 'duress' 'burden and Standard of Proof']
['criminal Law'] ['use or Consumption of Electricity Without Authority' 'theft of Electricity' 'illegal Electricity Bypass' 'intention' 'duress' 'burden and Standard of Proof']

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 / Determination of S 166 Related Offence After Jury Verdict on Cultivation Charge

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Mr Perrine used electricity at the premises.' 'Whether any electricity used by Mr Perrine was illegally diverted from the consumer main and away from the meter.' 'Whether the offence required proof that Mr Perrine intended to use electricity without entitlement or was aware he had no entitlement to use it.' 'Whether the Crown negatived duress beyond reasonable doubt.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Crown did not prove beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Perrine used illegally diverted, unmetered electricity: although charging his phone established some use of electricity, the reasonable possibility that it used legal metered electricity was not excluded. The Crown also failed to prove the required intention or awareness that he had no entitlement to use the electricity, and did not negative duress. Accordingly, three of the four identified elements were not satisfied.

Court Disposition

Accused found not guilty of the s 166 related offence of use or consume electricity without authority under s 64 of the Electricity Supply Act 1995.

Orders

  • ['I find the accused not guilty of the s 166 related offence of use or consume electricity without authority under s 64 of the Electricity Supply Act 1995.']