R v SCP[2018] QCHC 2

CHILDRENS COURT OF QUEENSLAND

Proceedings

1. [1]
   SCP is charged on indictment before the Childrens Court of Queensland at Ipswich with the following offences:

Count 1

That on the eighth day of November 2016 at Goodna in the State of Queensland, SCP entered the dwelling of Amy Louise Coulter and stole a portable speaker, a handbag, a phone charger, and shampoo and conditioner, the property of Amy Louise Coulter in the dwelling.

Count 2

That on the eighth day of November 2016 at Goodna in the State of Queensland, SCP with intent to steal it, demanded money from Amy Louise Coulter and Jeffrey Scott McCandless with threats that detriment would be caused to them by Dwain Michael Green, SCP, and TXK if the demand were not complied with.

2. [2]
   The defendant has pleaded not guilty to those charges and an election made for trial before a judge sitting without a jury.^[1] The trial proceeded before me on 7 February 2018. The defendant child did not give or call evidence.

3. [3]
   I have reached the conclusion that the defendant child should be found not guilty of both charges. These are my reasons for so finding.

Prosecution case

4. [4]
   The charges reflect allegations that the defendant child took part in a home invasion at the residence of Ms Coulter on the evening of 8 November 2016. It is alleged that on that date a number of persons entered the premises, made demands for payment of money, smashed windows, and stole property, before departing the scene. The prosecution case is that the offenders included the defendant child, his mother TXK, Dwain Green and perhaps others.

5. [5]
   The issue at trial is whether the evidence is sufficient to identify the defendant child as one of the persons involved in the commission of the offences. The prosecution relies principally upon claimed voice identification of the defendant as a person present at the scene and making a demand for money. The prosecution also relies upon other circumstantial evidence to support the voice identification.

6. [6]
   It is necessary to set out the evidence in some detail.

Evidence

Amy Coulter

7. [7]
   Amy Louise Coulter gave evidence that she had been in a relationship with Jeffrey McCandless, on and off for about eight years. She was living with her two children at 85 Redbank Plains Road at Goodna from the beginning of November 2016.^[2]

8. [8]
   Ms Coulter said that she knew TXK and her son SCP (the defendant). Ms Coulter said she, her children, and Mr McCandless, resided in the same townhouse with TXK for a period just under two weeks, just prior to her moving to 85 Redbank Plains Road.^[3] She had known TXK for about 6 months by that stage and saw her regularly.^[4] Ms Coulter said she knew TXK’s son SCP because he lived in the townhouse with them. She said SCP moved into the townhouse for about a week before she and her family moved out.^[5] Ms Coulter said during that period SCP often slept but she did hear SCP speaking to his mother.^[6]

9. [9]
   Ms Coulter said that one or two days after she moved to 85 Redbank Plains Road, TXK, her boyfriend “Noel”, and her son SCP visited her residence. She said that TXK asked for money that TXK claimed Ms Coulter owed her. Ms Coulter said she had owed money to TXK when she was living with her, but no longer did so. Ms Coulter said TXK did not accept that no money was owed, and Ms Coulter told her to leave the property or she would call police. Ms Coulter said that TXK and the others then left. Ms Coulter said that on this occasion only TXK spoke. Ms Coulter said the conversation where payment was demanded occurred on the front veranda at the front door. Ms Coulter’s account was that SCP was positioned near the front door, may not have entered her residence at all, and she did not hear him speak during the exchange with his mother.^[7]

10. [10]
    Ms Coulter described the events a few days later when intruders came to her home. She said she was in her kitchen and saw someone jumping her front fence. She said it was dark at this time. She said she spoke to Mr McCandless and the two of them locked themselves in the main bedroom where one of her children was watching television. She said her other child was asleep in the next bedroom.^[8] Ms Coulter said she then heard events at the front door whilst she was in the bedroom. She said her bedroom window was open with the curtain closed.^[9]

11. [11]
    In evidence-in-chief Ms Coulter described what occurred as follows:

Yep?---That’s when I started hearing banging on the front door and everything, and I heard them yelling out that they wanted money.

…

Okay. You said you could hear “them” at the front door?---Yes.

Okay. So can you tell us exactly what you could hear and who you could hear it from?---I could hear [TXK]’s voice. I could hear her yelling out, “Open the door.” And I could hear [SCP] yelling out something along the lines of, “Come on, bro. You know you owe us money.”

Okay. All  right. And did they say that – is that the only thing that they said?---That’s all I can remember them saying, yeah.

Okay. And did they say it just once or more than once?---A few times, I think. And Geoff and I have just both yelled out to get off the property or that we’d call the police. That’s when we started hearing banging on the glass window next to the door, and that’s when I started to panicked, and I grabbed my youngest from the other room to bring her into the room where we were. And Geoff and I sort of barricaded ourselves in there, like, pushing up against the door, and I rang triple zero - - -

Okay?-----at that point.

So how long do you think they were outside banging on the door before you went and retrieved your other daughter?              Probably about two or three minutes.

Okay?---It all really happened quite quickly, actually.^[10]

12. [12]
    In cross-examination, Ms Coulter was asked about the words she attributed to the defendant child. Her evidence was as follows:

Is it the case that all you heard at the start, that is, when the banging started was just the words, “Come outside”?              And, “Bro, you know you owe us money.”

Do you agree that all you have in your statement at this point - - -?---Yes. Yes.

- - - in your evidence is - - -? I do agree that that’s something that wasn’t in my

statement. It’s only something that I’ve only really thought of the last couple of months.

…

And it’s just been in – what – the last couple of months that you’ve been thinking back on this incident, you remember there being another thing said which included the word “bro”?---Yeah. Pretty much since the subpoena and everything got me thinking about it again.

And then the reference to money as well?--- Yep.

…

Before, in your evidence with the prosecutor, it’s at the point that you could hear the banging, you could hear the two voices prior to the entry being made into your house that, you say, you identified the voice of [SCP]?---Yep.

That – it was only at that point that you could clearly, on your version, identify his voice?---Yes. It was just at that very initial point. Yes.

So on this front veranda porch area, that was the only time in which, you say, you could hear his voice?---Yes.

…

I suggest to you that you are mistaken about recognising [SCP]’s voice that night?---Well - - -

If you disagree with me, you can say - - -?---I – I disagree. I think that I heard his voice and – yep. ^[11]

13. [13]
    Ms Coulter next described hearing people in the house and said although she could hear talking, she could not understand what was said.^[12] As to who was talking she said:

Okay. Could you make out who was saying it?---Or – to me at the time, it sounded like [TXK] and [SCP] and – yeah – and just another voice that I couldn’t quite understand, like work out who it was.^[13]

14. [14]
    Ms Coulter next described hearing someone bashing on her bedroom door and a male voice that she did not recognise saying they were going to count to five and then force the door open. She said that was not the voice of the defendant. She said the male started counting but stopped and she heard a second voice mumbling. She said at this time she called triple 0 for the second time and then the police arrived.^[14] Ms Coulter described seeing windows in her lounge room had been smashed and that property was missing including a number of DVDs, her handbag, and a small speaker. Ms Coulter identified photographs of damage and items which had apparently been stolen.^[15]

15. [15]
    Ms Coulter said that she had met the brother of SCP when she lived with TXK in the townhouse. She agreed that SCP’s brother “sounds about the same” as SCP, although she maintained she could distinguish their voices.^[16] Ms Coulter described that before these events her front door was closed and the wall to the right of her front door did not have a window in it. At the time of hearing the things said before entry was gained, she was inside her bedroom with Mr McCandless and her child, with the door closed. She said there was a second voice yelling apart from that of the defendant and there was also banging on the door at that time. She acknowledged being frightened and intermittently speaking with Mr McCandless and then calling triple 0 for the first time.^[17]

16. [16]
    Ms Coulter was asked in evidence-in-chief whether she told the triple 0 operator, during her first call, who the persons were that were at her house. Ms Coulter answered: “I told them that I was pretty sure that it was people that I knew.”^[18] In cross-examination of Ms Coulter it was suggested that, during the first triple 0 call she was asked by the operator if she knew who the persons were and she twice replied that she did not. Ms Coulter replied that she did not recall saying that.^[19] Ms Coulter went on to explain:

• - - I – honestly - the phone call itself, I – it’s a bit of a blur because I was so frantic because one [indistinct] I’ve got my kid in another room. I’m trying to keep one kid safe. Another kid’s in another room. I’m on the phone to police. I’ve got banging like – yeah.^[20]

17. [17]
    It was also suggested to Ms Coulter in cross-examination that, during the second call to triple 0, she was again asked by the operator whether she knew who the intruders were and she again replied she did not. Ms Coulter’s response was as follows:

• - - Honestly, I would’ve - I probably would’ve told any operator no at – back in those days because back in those days, I had quite a big drug problem. And to talk to police is against the drug rules.^[21]

Ms Coulter was asked in re-examination whether she told the police, when they arrived, who the intruders were, and she said she did.^[22] When asked to explain Ms Coulter replied:

• - - By the police turned up and everything, I had both my girls awake, petrified and just completely scared out of their brains by that stage. And it was just a bigger wake-up call to what I was already doing - - -

All right?-----to be like, “Nope. I need to tell the police the truth.”^[23]

I asked Ms Coulter about her responses during the triple 0 calls as follows:

Does that mean that you were deliberately being untruthful to the police in the triple-O calls in saying that you didn’t know who the people were who were inside?---Yes.^[24]

Jeffrey McCandless

18. [18]
    Jeffrey Scott McCandless also gave evidence of the relevant events. He confirmed he had been at 85 Redbank Plains Road with Ms Coulter and their children on the night of the break in.^[25] He said he had seen a male person jump the fence and recognised that person as Dwain Green, who he had known for over a year.^[26] Mr McCandless said he then went to the bedroom with Ms Coulter and the children. He then heard people yelling out about money owed to TXK and he then heard the sound of smashing glass.

19. [19]
    Mr McCandless said the yelling was coming from the front of the house.^[27] Mr McCandless said one of the voices “sounded like [SCP]”, TXK’s son.^[28] Mr McCandless said he had known TXK and SCP for a couple of months when they lived together in a townhouse.^[29] In cross-examination, Mr McCandless said that when he heard what he thought was SCP’s voice it came from the other end of the house. Mr McCandless said that at that time there were a lot of voices and banging noises coming from in the house, he was in the bedroom with Ms Coulter and the children, and two triple 0 calls were made.^[30] Mr McCandless conceded that it may not have been SCP’s voice and said “it could’ve been anyone”.^[31] Mr McCandless also accepted that SCP and his brother sounded about the same.^[32]

20. [20]
    Mr McCandless said he heard smashing glass and people inside the house. Mr McCandless said he thought he also recognised the voice of Dwain’s partner.^[33] Mr McCandless said his children were frantic and yelling at this time.^[34] He said he then heard the voice of Dwain yelling at him through the door to “Give us the money” and “Slide the money under the door”.^[35]

21. [21]
    Mr McCandless was asked whether he told the triple 0 operator who it was that was in the house and he said he could not remember.^[36] Mr McCandless later acknowledged he spoke to the triple 0 operator during the first call. He accepted he was asked by the operator if he knew the people who were in the house and he replied he did not. He said that was because he “wasn’t going to say anything about who broke into the house”.^[37] Mr McCandless acknowledged he had not told police, and it was not in his statement, that he recognised Dwain Green as the person who jumped his fence. He said that was a detail he had always remembered. Mr McCandless said he should have told police, that the incident was “pretty scary”, and he “couldn’t account for everything” that happened.^[38]

A/Sgt Paula Owens

22. [22]
    Acting Sergeant Paula Marie Owens gave evidence that she attended the address at 85 Redbank Plains Road on the night of 8 November 2016 in response to the triple 0 calls. She said she arrived at about 8.15pm. She said that, upon her arrival Ms Coulter had identified that TXK and SCP had been in her house. Officer Owens said she observed broken windows and saw a number of DVDs in the yard.^[39]

P C S/C Kyle Dixon

23. [23]
    Plain Clothes Senior Constable Kyle Aaron Dixon said he also attended Ms Coulter’s residence on the night of 8 November 2016. He said the next day he executed a search warrant at 3 Alexander Street, Booval. At that address he located each of TXK, SCP, and Dwain Green. Officer Dixon identified a number of photographs depicting items located during that search and which matched items reported as stolen by Ms Coulter. In particular, he found a small speaker inside a suitcase, and a number of DVDs. Officer Dixon also produced the triple 0 recordings.^[40]

Triple 0 calls

24. [24]
    Recordings of the two triple 0 calls were put into evidence as Exhibit 8. In the first call Ms Coulter was twice asked by the operator whether she knew who the persons were that were at her house and she replied she did not. During the first call Mr McCandless also spoke to the operator, was asked whether he knew who the intruders were and replied he did not. In the second call, Ms Coulter was again asked whether she knew who the intruders were, and she said she did not. During both calls Ms Coulter sounded distressed and upset and expressed fear and the need for urgency.

General principles

25. [25]
    The prosecution bears the onus of proving each element of each offence beyond reasonable doubt. The elements of each offence are as set out below. The defendant child has no onus of proof and is presumed to be innocent. SCP did not give or call evidence as is his right; no inference is drawn against him on that account. Because separate charges are preferred, it is necessary that I give separate consideration as to whether the elements of each offence are proved. However, in the present case the evidence purporting to identify the defendant as one of the offenders is the same for each alleged offence. For that reason, the question of whether the involvement of the defendant in each offence has been proved beyond reasonable doubt must be answered in the same way for each charge.

26. [26]
    The elements of the offences are:

Count 1: Burglary and stealing

1. The defendant;
2. Entered the dwelling of Ms Coulter;
3. Took items the property of Ms Coulter without her consent;
4. With an intention to permanently deprive Ms Coulter of the items of property.

Count 2: Demanding property with menaces

1. The defendant;
2. With intent to steal money;
3. Demanded money from Ms Coulter and Mr McCandless;
4. With threats that detriment would be caused to Ms Coulter and Mr McCandless if the demand were not complied with.

Circumstantial evidence

27. [27]
    The prosecution case relies, at least in part, upon circumstantial evidence. The relevant circumstances are as set out below. Because the prosecution case relies to some extent upon circumstantial evidence, it is necessary that guilt should not only be a rational inference but also that it should be the only rational inference that could be drawn from the circumstances.^[41] Because guilt must be established beyond reasonable doubt, it follows that if, upon consideration of all of the evidence, a reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence remains open, the defendant must be found not guilty.^[42] I acknowledge that the circumstantial evidence is to be considered in combination with all of the evidence in the case in determining whether all rational hypotheses consistent with innocence have been excluded.^[43]

28. [28]
    The relevant circumstances are as follows:

1. Shortly before the alleged offences the defendant’s mother, TXK, claimed Ms Coulter owed her money;
2. A couple of days prior to the commission of the alleged offences TXK attended the residence of Ms Coulter in company with the defendant;
3. On that occasion TXK made a demand for payment by Ms Coulter in the presence and apparent hearing of the defendant;
4. At the time of the alleged offences TXK and others attended Ms Coulter’s residence, made demands for payment of money, forced entry, and items of property were taken away;
5. Ms Coulter recognised the voice of the defendant as one of the intruders;
6. The person whose voice Ms Coulter recognised as that of the defendant claimed Ms Coulter owed the intruders money;
7. Mr McCandless described the voice of one of the intruders demanding money as sounding like the defendant;
8. Mr McCandless visually and audibly recognised one of the intruders as Dwain Green;
9. Items of property taken from Ms Coulter’s residence were located the next day at a residence where TXK, Dwain Green and the defendant were all present.

Identification evidence

29. [29]
    The case against the defendant depends upon the correctness of Ms Coulter’s voice identification of the defendant as one of the persons present at her house on the night of 8 November 2016. It is common ground that unless the purported voice identification by Ms Coulter is accepted as reliable, the evidence is not sufficient to prove the defendant child was present when the offences were committed. The correctness of the voice identification is a fact which the defendant disputes as mistaken.

30. [30]
    I therefore take notice of the special need for caution before relying upon the correctness of that voice identification.^[44] I acknowledge the possibility of an honest witness making a mistaken identification and that notorious miscarriages of justice have sometimes occurred based upon an honest but mistaken identification. I accept that a mistaken witness may be convincing and that I must examine carefully the circumstances in which the identification by Ms Coulter was made. These are as set out below. I accept that the identification evidence of Ms Coulter must be regarded in combination with the other evidence adduced at the trial in determining whether the identification evidence should be accepted as reliable. Here, because the evidence of voice recognition is given by a person who is no more than a casual acquaintance of the defendant, I must treat the evidence of identification with particular care and remain cautious before concluding that identification has been established.^[45]

31. [31]
    In this case there is no other evidence which, of itself, is capable of identifying the defendant as present at the time of the offences. Although the witness McCandless gave evidence that a voice he heard “sounded like” the defendant, he explained that he was unsure whether it was the defendant’s voice and conceded it “could’ve been anyone”. The mere assertion that a voice sounded like the defendant is, by itself, insufficient evidence of identity.^[46] The evidence of Mr McCandless however, remains circumstantial evidence, capable of supporting the identification by Ms Coulter, and to be considered in conjunction with Ms Coulter’s evidence.

32. [32]
    The circumstances of the identification by Ms Coulter of the voice of the defendant are as follows:

1. Ms Coulter had known the defendant child for a period of less than two weeks before the invasion of her residence;
2. Ms Coulter’s experience of hearing the defendant’s voice was during the one week period he had also resided at the town house and on occasions when he spoke to his mother;
3. Although Ms Coulter saw the defendant with his mother a couple of days before the offences, she did not hear him speak on that occasion;
4. Ms Coulter conceded the defendant’s voice “sounded like” that of his brother;
5. Ms Coulter recognised the voice of TXK, the defendant’s mother, as one of the people at her residence;
6. At the time Ms Coulter recognised the defendant’s voice she was in her bedroom with the door closed but with the windows open and the voice she heard was at the other end of her residence near the front door which was also closed;
7. Ms Coulter claimed to have heard the defendant yell a single sentence;

8. There were a number of other potential distractions at that time, including: banging noises, another voice yelling, and additionally, Ms Coulter was concerned for her own and her children’s safety, and she was speaking to Mr McCandless and on the phone;
9. Ms Coulter maintained she could distinguish the defendant’s voice and adhered to her claimed recognition.

33. [33]
    A number of weaknesses are identified in the circumstances of the voice recognition by Ms Coulter and it is necessary to set these out. I am required to have regard to all matters which may affect consideration of the purported identification.^[47] Ms Coulter had known the defendant child only for a very short time. Her knowledge of his voice was restricted to having heard him speak to his mother during the one week period they shared the town house. It is not specified how often or for how long during that period she heard his voice. Ms Coulter was not shown, therefore, to have had any substantial familiarity with the defendant’s voice. Ms Coulter acknowledged the defendant’s voice sounded similar to that of his brother. This carries the obvious risk of her mistaking one for the other, particularly when her identification of the defendant is accompanied by her identification of TXK’s voice. That circumstance creates the additional risk of Ms Coulter mistakenly identifying the defendant’s voice by reason of her associating the defendant with his mother.

34. [34]
    Further, Ms Coulter’s recognition was made of a voice said to be at the opposite end of the house and with the bedroom and front doors closed. Naturally, a person’s ability to recognise a relatively unfamiliar voice in those circumstances is reduced compared to hearing that voice in the same room or from close at hand. In the end, Ms Coulter attributed a single sentence to the defendant during events that occurred very quickly. The recognition was made in the midst of somewhat chaotic events including multiple competing voices and noise, and whilst concerned for her family’s welfare. Hearing only a short sample of a person’s voice, and in the midst of other significant distractions, naturally reduces the likelihood of correct recognition. In this case, Ms Coulter said the words were yelled by the defendant so that he was not then using his normal talking tone or volume. This presents a further risk of mistake.

35. [35]
    In addition, there are two aspects of Ms Coulter’s evidence which raise a real issue as to the reliability of her claim to have recognised the defendant’s voice. The first involves her different statements about whether she recognised the voice of the intruders. Ms Coulter claimed she recognised the defendant’s voice upon hearing it, however, she did not disclose his identity during the triple 0 calls. Initially, Ms Coulter claimed in evidence she told the operator she was “pretty sure” she knew the intruders. When challenged that she had not identified the intruders, she explained that was due to the frantic and frightening nature of the event. When again challenged, she explained she had been immersed in the drug culture which militated against speaking to police. In the end, she claimed she deliberately lied to the operator, but told police who first arrived. The contradictory and shifting explanations given by Ms Coulter raise real reason to doubt the veracity of her claim that she recognised the voice of the defendant immediately she heard it. If Ms Coulter deliberately lied to the operator, it would follow she was also less than frank when challenged in evidence. Her first two explanations are inconsistent with the last. In addition, her claimed deliberate dishonesty during the calls seems at odds with her apparent demeanour in the recordings.

36. [36]
    The second aspect of Ms Coulter’s evidence concerns when she claimed to have recognised the defendant’s voice. In the cross-examination set out above at [12], Ms Coulter gave evidence that the only words she heard the defendant say were “Bro – you know you owe us money”. She was then asked a question about her police statement and she interrupted to acknowledge “that that’s something that wasn’t in my statement”. She explained it was “something that I’ve only really thought of the last couple of months”. Submissions were made to the effect that all Ms Coulter acknowledged was that the word “Bro” was not in her statement. However, upon review of the full transcript of Ms Coulter’s evidence, I am not satisfied that was so. The matter was not clarified outside of the passages set out above. The conclusion I draw is the same as the impression I expressed during submissions; namely, Ms Coulter’s evidence was that all of the words she attributed to the defendant were things she had recently remembered. Her final position, as set out above at [12], was that this was the only time she heard the defendant’s voice. In those circumstances, there is real doubt about the immediacy of any recognition of the defendant’s voice by Ms Coulter as opposed to that being a more recent memory.

Consideration

37. [37]
    As noted already, it is common ground that the evidence, apart from the recognition by Ms Coulter of the defendant’s voice, is insufficient to prove the defendant was one of the intruders. The prosecution acknowledged various weaknesses in the identification of the defendant’s voice by Ms Coulter but argued that the other evidence supported her account; such that his identity was proved beyond reasonable doubt. On behalf of the defendant it was submitted that the evidence of Ms Coulter was so deficient that it could not be accepted, even in combination with the remaining evidence.

38. [38]
    The other evidence established that the defendant was present for, and knew of, his mother’s claim that Ms Coulter owed her money. The evidence of Ms Coulter also established that TXK was one of the intruders. Property stolen during the break in was located the next day at a residence where TXK, Dwain Green and the defendant were also present. Nothing in that evidence however, demonstrated that the defendant must have had knowledge of, or connection to, the break in or stolen property. These circumstances do not logically reinforce the identification by Ms Coulter of the defendant’s voice.

39. [39]
    The evidence of Mr McCandless that the voice he heard “sounded like” the defendant was acknowledged by Mr McCandless to be inconclusive. Mr McCandless acknowledged the claim of visually identifying Dwain Green as one of the intruders was not something he told police about or recorded in his witness statement. In addition, he too claimed to hear multiple voices yelling that money was owed to TXK and it was one of these he thought might be the defendant. His knowledge of the defendant’s voice was limited, and he admitted the defendant and his brother sounded alike. The possibility of mistake is obvious. He acknowledged the other multiple distractions at that time including the frantic atmosphere, other noises, upset children, and the making of the triple 0 calls. He too was asked by the triple 0 operator whether he knew theintruders and replied he did not. His explanation was, in effect, that he deliberately lied. In light of these deficiencies, I do not regard Mr McCandless’ evidence as offering any real measure of support for Ms Coulter’s recognition.

40. [40]
    In assessing the evidence of Ms Coulter, I have had regard to all of the matters referred to above at paragraphs [33] – [36] and remain conscious of the need for caution before acting upon her recognition as evidence identifying the defendant as one of the intruders. The inconsistent statements to the triple 0 operator made at the time of the alleged recognition and the effect of her evidence that the words allegedly spoken, and which form the basis of the recognition, were only recalled recently, seriously damage her credit and reliability. The limited opportunity for Ms Coulter to have become familiar with the defendant’s voice, and the limited opportunity to have heard it on the night in question, lead me to doubt the reliability of her recognition. The other circumstances of the event, including that the voice was a distance away, that the voice was yelling, and the existence of other multiple distractions, further undermine any confidence in that identification.

41. [41]
    In the end I am not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, having regard to the whole of the evidence, that Ms Coulter’s identification of the defendant should be accepted. In those circumstances, there remains a rational hypothesis consistent with innocence open on the evidence; namely, that the defendant was not one of the persons who entered Ms Coulter’s residence.

42. [42]
    On the whole of the evidence, I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt the other elements of each offence are proved. I am satisfied on the basis of the account of Ms Coulter, Mr McCandless, and the police officers, that there was an entry of the dwelling of Ms Coulter and that items of her property were stolen. I am also satisfied on the basis of that evidence that, with intent to steal money, a demand for money was made of Ms Coulter and Mr McCandless, with the threat of detriment to them if the demand were not complied with. In respect of each charge, I am not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt the defendant was one of the offenders. Accordingly, the defendant should be found not guilty of both counts.

Orders

43. [43]
    The orders of the Court are:

1. In relation to Count 1, the offence of burglary and stealing, I find SCP not guilty.

2. In relation to Count 2, the offence of demanding property with menaces, I find SCP not guilty.