Atkins (a pseudonym) v Shuttleworth - [2025] ACTSC 414

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	Atkins (a pseudonym) v Shuttleworth
Citation:	[2025] ACTSC 414
Hearing Dates:	24 July 2025
Decision Date:	12 September 2025
Before:	Kelly AJ
Decision:	(1) The order made by the Magistrate on 21 February 2024 is set aside. (2) The conviction on the stalking count (CH 2024/94) is dismissed. (3) The conviction of the count of aggravated common assault (CH 2024/93) is confirmed.
Catchwords:	APPEAL – CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal from ACT Magistrates Court – appeal against conviction – stalking – s 35 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) – meaning of on more than one occasion – reckless intent – unreasonable verdict – fresh evidence – diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), s 35 Crimes Act 1958 (Vic), s 21A Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT), Div 3.10.2
Cases Cited:	Alexander v Bakes [2023] ACTCA 49; 21 ACTLR 27 Berlyn v Brouskos [2002] VSC 377; 134 A Crim R 111 Buttriss v Jarvis [2024] ACTSC 247 Kirk v Hicks [2024] ACTSC 363 M v the Queen [1994] HCA 63; 181 CLR 487 TKWJ v The Queen [2002] HCA 46; 212 CLR 124
Parties:	Wesley Atkins (a pseudonym) ( Appellant) Melissa Anne Shuttleworth ( Respondent)
Representation:	Counsel S Baker-Goldsmith ( Appellant) M Howe ( Respondent)
Solicitors Peter Agoth & Associates ( Appellant) ACT Director of Public Prosecutions ( Respondent)
File Number:	SCA 16 of 2024

Decision Under Appeal:

Court/Tribunal: Magistrates Court of the ACT

Before: Magistrate Stewart

Date of Decision: 21 February 2024

Case Title: Police v [redacted]

Court File Number: 813440

KELLY AJ:

Introduction

1․On 15 March 2024, the appellant filed a notice of appeal from an order made by a Magistrate on 21 February 2024 convicting the appellant of one count of stalking and one count of aggravated common assault.
2․By way of an application filed on 6 March 2025, the appellant sought to amend the notice of appeal to include an additional ground, namely that the proceedings before the Magistrate miscarried as a result of the failure of the appellant’s legal representatives at the time to make reasonable enquiries concerning the appellant’s mental health conditions, including his diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder.
3․Upon the hearing of the appeal, counsel for the respondent did not object to the appellant been given leave to amend the notice of appeal to include the additional ground, nor did he take issue with the application to adduce fresh evidence in the form of the affidavits from the appellant’s mother, the instructing solicitor and a report from a forensic psychologist. Accordingly, I granted leave at the hearing for the new ground to be added and received fresh evidence. I heard argument on the merits of that ground during the argument on appeal.
4․Both parties accepted that the real issue for determination in respect of this ground is whether the failure to adduce the evidence of the diagnosis of autism and possible schizophrenia amounts to a material irregularity…

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 Atkins (a pseudonym) v Shuttleworth

Details

AGLC: Atkins (a pseudonym) v Shuttleworth [2025] ACTSC 414
Case: [2025] ACTSC 414
Decision Date: 12 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Atkins, was convicted in the ACT Magistrates Court of stalking and aggravated common assault. Atkins appealed the stalking conviction on the basis that the trial magistrate erred in law, that the verdict was unreasonable, and that fresh evidence was available. The respondent, Shuttleworth, was the subject of the stalking behaviour. The appeal was heard in the ACT Supreme Court. Atkins argued that the stalking conviction should be set aside because the trial magistrate misunderstood the meaning of "on more than one occasion" under section 35 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT). Additionally, Atkins contended that there was no evidence of reckless intent, and that the verdict was unreasonable. Lastly, Atkins submitted that the magistrate should have considered a diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder, which was presented as fresh evidence.

The court found that the trial magistrate did indeed misinterpret the statutory provision, as "on more than one occasion" did not require multiple distinct incidents but rather multiple acts or a course of conduct. The court held that the evidence did not support a finding of reckless intent, and the verdict was unreasonable in light of the evidence presented. The court also considered the fresh evidence of the autism diagnosis and found that it warranted reconsideration of the stalking conviction. The court concluded that the error in law and the unreasonable verdict were sufficient grounds to set aside the stalking conviction.

The conviction for aggravated common assault was confirmed as the evidence supported this conviction and there were no legal errors in its determination. The court set aside the stalking conviction and dismissed it, while confirming the conviction for aggravated common assault.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) The order made by the Magistrate on 21 February 2024 is set aside.

(2) The conviction on the stalking count (CH 2024/94) is dismissed.

(3) The conviction of the count of aggravated common assault (CH 2024/93) is confirmed.

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.