Armstrong v Shankar - [2018] ACTMC 12

MAGISTRATES COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	Armstrong v Shankar
Citation:	[2018] ACTMC 12
Hearing Dates:	29 September 2017 12 February 2018 3 April 2018
DecisionDate:	20 July 2018
Before:	Special Magistrate Hunter OAM
Decision:	See [97]-[98]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – Common assault – offences against the person – credibility of witnesses – independent evidence
Cases Cited:	Wyper v The Queen [2017] ACTCA 59
Parties:	Constable Liam Armstrong (Informant) Sharneel Shankar (Defendant)
Representation:	Mr J De Bruin (Informant) Mr A Webb (Defendant) Ms S Ramsay (Defendant)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Informant) Legal Aid (Defendant)
File Numbers:	CC 10500 of 2016

SPECIAL MAGISTRATE HUNTER

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Evidence

This matter arose out of a family dispute between the complainant Nikhil Nand and his cousin Sharneel Shankar.
The incident was said to have taken place at 22 Bargang Crescent Ngunnawal on 8 October 2016. This followed an allegation that Nikhil Nand had been rude to the defendant’s mother and father whilst they were visiting his home.
Nikhil Nand gave an evidence in chief interview with police on the 8 October 2016 and gave evidence before me.
I also heard evidence from:
(a)Liam Armstrong a police officer and the informant in this matter;
(b)Preeti Pritika Nand, Nikhil’s sister;
(c)Nitya Nand who is Nikhil’s father. Nitya Nand also participated in an interview with police on 8 October 2016;
(d)Kamal Sharma the defendant’s wife;
(e)Surend Shankar the defendant’s father.
The defendant also gave evidence before me.
I also had the benefit of several documents which were exhibited. I have had regard to the following documents
(a)Statement of Constable Erin Newland (Exhibit P1);
(b)Statement of Robert Ryan (Exhibit P2);
(c)Photographs of defendant taken by Nikhil Nand at time of incident (Exhibit P3);
(d)000 call Nikhil Nand (Exhibit P4);
(e)Evidence in chief interview Nikhil Nand (Exhibit P5);
(f)Recorded conversation with Nitya Nand (Exhibit P6);
(g)Map of incident by Nikhil Nand (Exhibit P7);
(h)000 call from Robert Ryan.

Nikhil Nand

Nikhil Nand gave evidence via an evidence in chief interview, 000 call and before me on 29 September 2017. A summary of his evidence and the evidence of other witnesses has been usefully provided by the prosecutor with reference to the transcript.

A. The First Incident – Evidence in chief interview

Nikhil Nand said that on 8 October he was at home with his parents. In his evidence in chief interview he said he was on the phone to his sister when he heard someone knock on the door. He answered the door, he described that his cousin started going off at him about his relationship with his ex-girlfriend. Mr Nand described that as soon as he took a step outside the screen door he (the defendant) started choking him, yelling at him and said, “You’ve been going off at my parents while my parents were having a meeting about the past”. He gave some evidence about the conversation in relation to the defendant’s parents and the way he had spoken to them…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Armstrong v Shankar

Details

AGLC: Armstrong v Shankar [2018] ACTMC 12
Case: [2018] ACTMC 12
Decision Date: 20 July 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Armstrong v Shankar involved the appellant, Armstrong, who was convicted of assaulting the respondent, Shankar, and was found guilty of common assault by a court in Queensland. Armstrong appealed against his conviction, arguing that the evidence against him was unreliable and that there was no independent evidence to corroborate Shankar's account. The respondent maintained that the assault occurred and that the evidence presented in court was sufficient to convict Armstrong.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the trial judge had erred in finding Armstrong guilty of common assault based solely on the uncorroborated testimony of the respondent. The court had to determine whether the evidence provided by Shankar, who was the sole witness to the assault, was credible and sufficient to support a conviction. Additionally, the court considered whether the trial judge appropriately assessed the credibility of the witnesses and whether there was a reasonable possibility that the assault did not occur as Armstrong contended.

The court examined the evidence presented in the trial, including the testimony of Shankar and Armstrong, and assessed the credibility of each witness. It found that the trial judge had not erred in accepting Shankar's account as credible and in finding Armstrong guilty. The court held that there was no requirement for independent evidence to corroborate the respondent's testimony, as the judge was entitled to believe the evidence of a single witness if it was satisfactory. The court also noted that the trial judge had given proper consideration to the credibility of the witnesses and that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.

The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction for common assault was upheld. The court made orders in line with its findings, as detailed in paragraphs [97] and [98] of the judgement.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [97]-[98]

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.