AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
District Court 25 July 2025

R v Izzard

[2025] NSWDC 282

Assault & violenceFraud & dishonestyTheft & propertyFirearms & weapons
CRIME JUDGE ALONE TRIAL DEAL WITH PROCEEDS OF CRIME.

Citation: R v Izzard [2025] NSWDC 282
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 25 July 2025
Judge: Colefax SC DCJ

Background

The accused was charged in connection with an armed robbery that occurred in the early hours of 12 June 2021 in Parramatta. The complainant, a pedestrian walking home after a social gathering, was approached by a man who emerged from a stationary vehicle, pointed a firearm at his face, and demanded money. When the complainant said he had none, the man took his mobile phone and Bluetooth earbuds, then returned to the vehicle, which drove away.

The stolen phone was still active and was used shortly after the robbery to transfer a total of approximately $6,400 from the complainant's bank account into accounts belonging to two other people, one of whom later transferred $900 to the accused's bank account. The Crown alleged the accused was the person who had stepped out of the vehicle and committed the robbery.

The matter proceeded as a judge-alone trial on an indictment containing three counts: armed robbery with a dangerous weapon (a firearm or imitation firearm) under s 97(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), with a statutory alternative of armed robbery with an offensive weapon under s 97(1), and two counts of dealing with proceeds of crime under ss 193B(1) and 193B(2), arising from the $900 transfer.

  • Whether the Crown proved beyond reasonable doubt that it was the accused, and not another person present in the vehicle, who committed the armed robbery.
  • Whether the Crown's evidence was sufficient to exclude the reasonable possibility that the other known occupant of the vehicle, Dean Zammit, was the actual robber.
  • Whether, given the concessions made by the Crown, verdicts on the alternative and related counts followed from the verdict on Count 1.

Decision

The sole contested issue at trial was the identity of the robber. The judge accepted that, apart from identification, the Crown had proved every element of the armed robbery beyond reasonable doubt. The question was whether the accused or Dean Zammit had stepped out of the vehicle and committed the offence.

The Crown's case rested heavily on the oral evidence of Dean Zammit, who said the accused had been the front passenger and had exited the vehicle before returning with the complainant's phone. The judge found Zammit was neither honest nor reliable on this central issue. Significant factors included his heavy intoxication by methylamphetamine at the time, inconsistencies in his account, and concerns about his credibility given his own involvement in the events. Notably, Zammit was himself wearing a balaclava that night, an item of clothing the complainant would have found difficult to distinguish from a hoodie and cloth mask in poor lighting.

The complainant's own description of the robber as approximately 5 foot 10 inches tall was inconsistent with the accused's height of 6 foot 3 inches, a discrepancy the judge regarded as significant. CCTV footage relied upon by the Crown did not, in the judge's assessment, reliably identify either the driver or the front passenger, or exclude the possibility that Zammit was the person who had left the vehicle.

The judge was ultimately left with a reasonable doubt as to whether the accused was the robber. The Crown had not excluded the reasonable possibility that Zammit committed the offence. Because of concessions made by the Crown, acquittals followed on all counts, including the statutory alternatives and the proceeds of crime charges.

Orders Made

  • The accused was found not guilty of Count 1 (armed robbery while armed with a dangerous weapon).
  • The accused was found not guilty of the statutory alternative to Count 1 (armed robbery while armed with an offensive weapon).
  • The accused was found not guilty of Count 2 (dealing with proceeds of crime, knowing and intending to conceal).
  • The accused was found not guilty of Count 3 (dealing with proceeds of crime, knowing).

Key Takeaways

  • The District Court confirmed that where identification is the sole contested issue, the Crown must exclude beyond reasonable doubt every reasonable possibility as to who committed the offence, including the possibility that a known alternative suspect was responsible.
  • A conviction for armed robbery cannot rest on the evidence of a single witness whose honesty and reliability are genuinely in doubt, particularly where that witness was heavily intoxicated at the time and had his own involvement in the surrounding events.
  • Physical description evidence carries real weight in identification cases: the judge treated the marked discrepancy between the complainant's estimate of the robber's height and the accused's actual height as a meaningful factor favouring reasonable doubt.
  • CCTV footage does not automatically establish identity; the District Court declined to accept that the footage here reliably identified who was in the driver's seat or front passenger seat, or who exited and re-entered the vehicle.
  • Where proceeds of crime charges are tied directly to an underlying offence, and the Crown accepts that an acquittal on the primary count necessitates acquittals on those related charges, the court will enter not guilty verdicts on all counts accordingly.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation:
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 97(1), 97(2) (robbery while armed with an offensive or dangerous weapon), 193B(1), 193B(2) (dealing with proceeds of crime)

Cases cited: None cited in the judgment or metadata.