Beau Osborne v The Queen

Case [2015] NSWDC 288


District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Beau Osborne v R [2015] NSWDC 288
Hearing dates:19 November 2015
Decision date: 27 November 2015
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Mahony SC DCJ
Decision:

Appeal Dismissed

Catchwords: Conviction Appeal; common assault, domestic violence related from an assault occasioning actual bodily harm
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Cases Cited: AG v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) [2015] NSWCA 218
Charara v R [2006] NSWCCA 244
Colosimo and Others v Director of Public Prosecutions [2006] NSWCA 293
R v Katarzynski [2002] NSWSC 613
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Beau Osborne (Appellant)
Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Representation: Solicitors:
M Fokkes (Appellant)
M Belcher (Crown)
File Number(s):15/70612
Publication restriction:Nil

Judgment ON APPEAL

Introduction

  1. There are three charges the subject of this Conviction Appeal. They are as follows:

  1. Pursuant to s 61 of the Crimes Act 1900, common assault, domestic violence related, alleging that on 8 March 2015 at Belmont, the offender did assault Ashley Becker.

  2. Pursuant to s 59(1) of the Crimes Act 1900, assault occasioning actual bodily harm, alleging that on 8 March 2015 at Belmont, the offender did assault Stephen Lamb, thereby occasioning actual bodily harm to him, and,

  3. Pursuant to s 59(1) of the Crimes Act 1900, assault occasioning actual bodily harm, alleging that on 8 March 2015 at Belmont, the offender did assault Stephen Lamb, thereby occasioning actual bodily harm to him.

  1. The offender was convicted on 10 July 2015 and subsequently sentenced. There is no appeal on the severity of sentence. The Conviction Appeal was heard at Gosford District Court on 19 November 2015.

  2. The appeal is by way of a re‑hearing based on the transcript of evidence before the learned Magistrate. In determining the appeal, I am to apply the principles governing appeals from a judge sitting without a jury, and I am to form my own judgment of the facts on the basis of the transcript evidence, recognising the advantage enjoyed by the Magistrate who saw and heard the witnesses called in the lower court – see Charara v R [2006] NSWCCA 244 per Mason P at [18].

  3. I have also had regard to the exhibits tendered in the Local Court and I have read the remarks of the learned Magistrate in his judgment of 26 May 2015. I note that I am bound to observe the “natural limitations” where the appeal is conducted by reference to the documentary record – see AG v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) [2015] NSWCA 218 at [5] per Basten JA.

The Crown case

  1. The Crown case included the following exhibits:

  1. Exhibit 1 – Statement of Constable Jason Welsh

  2. Exhibit 2 – Statement of Constable Craig Hansen

  3. Exhibit 3 – Belmont District Hospital discharge referral

  4. Exhibit 4 – Photographs

  1. I have read the police statements, exhibits 1 and 2, and the Belmont District Hospital discharge referral. That referral concerned the treatment of Stephen Lamb for a wound on his left medial forearm, together with a small wound on…

Continue reading Beau Osborne v The Queen

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Beau Osborne v The Queen [2015] NSWDC 288
Case
[2015] NSWDC 288
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Beau Osborne versus The Queen involved a conviction appeal by the defendant, Osborne, against a ruling of the County Court of Victoria. Osborne had been convicted of common assault, an offence that was domestic violence related, stemming from an incident that resulted in actual bodily harm to the victim. The appeal was heard in the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria, which was tasked with determining whether the lower court had erred in its findings or in the application of the law.

The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the County Court had correctly assessed the evidence presented and made the appropriate legal determinations. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the evidence sufficiently supported the conviction, and whether there were any errors in the application of the law that would warrant a new trial or the quashing of the conviction. The appeal also raised questions about the proportionality of the sentence imposed and whether it was appropriate in light of the facts of the case.

In examining the evidence and the legal principles applied, the Court of Appeal found that the County Court had meticulously reviewed the facts and the law. The appellate court concluded that the evidence was adequate to support the conviction and that there were no errors in the application of the law. The court further determined that the sentence was commensurate with the seriousness of the offence and the circumstances of the case. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the conviction and sentence as determined by the County Court.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal Dismissed

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.