R v Jacob Bradley Holland [2017] NSWDC 47

District Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Jacob Bradley Holland [2017] NSWDC 47 Hearing dates: 2 March, 6 March , 8 March 2017 Decision date: 17 March 2017 Jurisdiction: Criminal Before: Mahony SC DCJ Decision: Verdict of Not Guilty Catchwords: Break, enter premises and commit serious indictable offence; Judge alone trial; automatism defence; sleepwalking Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 Criminal Procedure Act 1986 Cases Cited: R v Burgess (1991) 2QB 92 R v Falconer (1991) 171 CLR 30 R v Youseff (1990) 50 ACrim Report 1 Woodbridge v R [2010] NSWCCA 185 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Jacob Bradley Holland (Accused) Representation: Counsel: A Bowens (Crown)

Solicitors/Trial Advocate: P Townsend (Accused) File Number(s): 14/330175 Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment 1. Jacob Bradley Holland is charged that on 9 November 2014 at Coffs Harbour in the State of New South Wales he did break and enter the premises of Brenda Foran, situated in Gundagai Street, Coffs Harbour, and then in the said house did commit a serious indictable offence, namely, assault Brenda Foran, occasioning actual bodily harm in circumstances of aggravation, namely, using corporal violence on Brenda Foran. 2. The charge is brought pursuant to s 112(2) of the Crimes Act 1900. By consent, the trial proceeded to be heard by judge alone from 2 March 2017. This judgment records my verdict and my reasons for reaching that verdict. 3. The elements of the offence are as follows: 1. That Jacob Bradley Holland did break and enter premises at Gundagai Street, Coffs Harbour, and 2. In the said premises did commit a serious indictable offence, namely, assault Brenda Foran, and 3. Occasion actual bodily harm in circumstances of aggravation, namely, using corporal violence on Brenda Foran. 1. The Crown bears the onus of proving the charge beyond reasonable doubt. That involves proving each of the elements listed above beyond reasonable doubt. 2. The onus of proof remains at all times on the Crown to prove the elements of the charge beyond reasonable doubt. Speculation cannot enter into my considerations and inferences may be drawn from established facts only if such an inference is a rational inference. 3. The accused pleaded not guilty upon arraignment on the above charge. His defence is that at all relevant times he did not have the requisite mens rea to commit the offence. Rather, he was suffering a state of automatism, namely, somnambulism (i.e. that he was sleepwalking).