R v SMITH - Wilful Damage & Threats

The matter, R v SMITH, although the name of the Defendant has been changed (even though it has been in the public forum), occurred in the magistrate's court in Queensland. The Defendant was self-represented. A dispute had occurred between two men and during the course of the argument the Defendant made threats towards the victim to damage their motor vehicle. When the victim went to film the Defendant, the Defendant knocked the phone out of the victim's hand causing damage to it when it hit the ground.

The Defendant was charged by police for wilful damage and threats. Police obtained a statement from the victim, a statement from a witness, CCTV footage which was operating in the area and mobile phone footage recorded by the victim.

The Defendant had prepared immensely for their court appearance. However, it became apparent during the course of the trial, the Defendant did not prep to negative the elements of the offence.

The elements of the offence is what Prosecutions have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt and the Prosecutor will prep their case in accordance with proving each and every element.

For example; the elements for Wilful Damage are time, date, place, defendant, wilfully, unlawfully, destroyed or damaged, any property.

When charged by police the charge for Wilful Damage, for example, will read as follows;

That on the 9th day of January 2023 at Beaudesert in the State of Queensland one John Smith wilfully and unlawfully damaged property namely a mobile phone.

The crucial evidence the police obtained was video footage from a CCTV camera system that was operating in the area and recorded the entire event, however, there was no sound. In addition, the victim had video footage from their mobile phone when they went to record the Defendant just prior to the Defendant whacking the phone out of the victim's hand.

The video footage proved the offence Wilful Damage, however, it also showed the victim was not acting in a way that displayed fear or being intimidated by the Defendant and the Magistrate found the Defendant not guilty of the second charge of Threats.

The Defendant's preparation showed they had constructed their case on their substantial knowledge into camera systems and also their research into the victim's occupation and how the tools the victim used for their occupation could be construed as weapons during the offence.

A mistake made by the Defendant, and this is only due to a lack of knowledge in the court arena, is in relation to trying to tender documents, manuals and similar pieces of evidence as exhibits to rely upon during the trial. What at times is not known by Defendants self-representing themselves are documents, which may be for example manuals or possess some degree of instructional material, cannot be tendered by a Defendant if they did not write it. In that instance the author of the material has to be brought to court and give evidence as a witness. The Defendant did try to produce reports that possible showed the video footage had been in some way tampered with. Because the Defendant used a particular program to produce the report the Prosecutor argued the Defendant could not tender the report as an exhibit due to not having a witness that could explain the program and the report the program issued. This occurred when the Defendant was cross-examining the police witness who was the investigating officer and had obtained the CCTV footage. The Defendant had prepped too heavily in this area of their case and not considered the elements of the offence for both offences.

In conclusion the Magistrate relied heavily upon the CCTV footage. The Defendant, who had a copy of the brief of evidence which included the footage could have seen the footage alone aided the Prosecution in proving the elements of Wilful Damage but also aided the Defendant in disproving the elements of Threats. If time had been taken by the Defendant to scrutinize the evidence provided by Prosecutions then they could have adapted their defence to negative the offences. Analysing the brief of evidence supplied by Prosecutions is paramount when constructing a defence. The evidence in the brief of evidence supplied by Prosecutions has to be able to prove each and every element of the offence. Time should be taken to see which bodies of evidence are going to be relied upon to prove each element of the offence. This one step will aid the self-represented Defendant to compose their defence.