R v Jason Hans Speelman [2016] NSWDC 322

District Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Jason Hans Speelman [2016] NSWDC 322 Hearing dates: 1 – 11 August 2016 Date of orders: 11 August 2016 Decision date: 11 August 2016 Jurisdiction: Criminal Before: A Haesler SC DCJ Decision: Guilty verdict – Count 1- attempt murder Guilty verdict – Count 2- use offensive weapon with intent to avoid apprehension Catchwords: Attempt murder; use offensive weapon with intent to avoid apprehension; judge alone trial; key directions; shot to head; identity of shooter; witness credibility; identification and recognition; circumstantial evidence; lawful apprehension. Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 Evidence Act 1995 Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 (LEPRA) Cases Cited: Christie v Leachinsky [1947] AC 573 Coombes v Roads and Traffic Authority & Ors [2006] NSWCA 229 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Director of Public Prosecutions - CROWN Jason Hans SPEELMAN – accused Representation: Counsel: Mr R Steward – ODPP Mr E Wasilenia – for the accused

Solicitors: Ms L Cocca – ODPP E. Ruth Cohen – for the accused File Number(s): 2015/00103497

Judgment 1. On 1 August 2016 Jason Hans Speelman said he was not guilty to two counts alleging he on 8 April 2015, 1. attempted to murder Joseph Ison and, 2. used an offensive weapon with intent to prevent his lawful apprehension. His trial proceeded before me at Wollongong. Evidence and submissions concluded late yesterday. 1. A person accused of a serious crime can after receiving legal advice waive their right to trial by jury and elect for a trial by judge alone. Mr Speelman made that election. The Director of Public Prosecutions consented to that course. 2. As the trial was conducted without a jury, I have a duty not just to return verdicts, but also to expose clearly and if possible, succinctly, my reasoning process. I must include in my decision fundamental propositions, principles of law and any necessary warnings or cautions that apply and thus operate to guide my evaluation of the evidence. I am required to summarise the crucial arguments of the parties, formulate the issues for decision and resolve all issues of law and fact that need to be determined so as to justify the verdicts reached.