Black v Lawrence - [2019] ACTSC 266

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	Black v Lawrence
Citation:	[2019] ACTSC 266
Hearing Date:	23 September 2019
DecisionDate:	30 September 2019
Before:	Crowe AJ
Decision:	See [89]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL – Appeal against conviction – common assault – where it is claimed that the guilty findings of the Magistrate were unsafe and unsatisfactory – appeal dismissed
Legislation Cited:	Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT) s 208
Cases Cited:	ED v The Queen [2019] ACTCA 10 Goodwin v Williams [2018] ACTSC 279 Peverill v Crampton [2010] ACTSC 79
Parties:	Peter Black (Appellant) Libby Lawrence (Respondent)
Representation:	Counsel S McLaughlin (Appellant) J Hiscox (Respondent)
Solicitors Legal Aid ACT (Appellant) ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent)
File Number:	SCA 32 of 2019
Decision under appeal:	Court/Tribunal: ACT Magistrates Court Before: Magistrate Theakston Date of Decision: 15 May 2019 Case Title: Lawrence v Black Court File Numbers: CC2018/8638; CC2018/8639

CROWE AJ:

Mr Peter Douglas Black (the appellant) was charged with having assaulted his partner
Ms Kylie Dunn (Ms Dunn) causing actual bodily harm. In the alternative he was charged with assaulting Ms Dunn. He was also charged with assaulting Mr Braiden Dunn (Mr Dunn), Ms Dunn’s son. The appellant pleaded not guilty and the matters came on for hearing in the Magistrates Court on 14 and 15 May 2019.

After hearing the evidence called by the prosecution and the defence, as well as their submissions, Magistrate Theakston (the Magistrate) delivered an ex tempore decision on 15 May 2019. He found the appellant not guilty of assault causing actual bodily harm. However, he found him guilty of the two charges of common assault.

Sentencing of the appellant did not proceed having regard to the notice of appeal filed on 7 June 2019. The only ground of appeal specified in the notice was that the Magistrate’s findings of guilt were unsafe and unsatisfactory.

The appeal is brought pursuant to s 208(1)(b) of the Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT) and the applicable principles are set out in Peverill v Crampton [2010] ACTSC 79 by Refshauge J at [24].

In relation to the challenge based on the assertion that the Magistrate’s judgment was unsafe or unsatisfactory, the approach to be taken by the appellate court is relevantly summarised by the Court of Appeal (Murrell CJ, Mossop and Bromwich JJ) in ED v The Queen [2019] ACTCA 10 at [43] in the following terms:

…
(b) The appeal court is to make its own independent assessment of whether, on the evidence, there is a reasonable doubt as to guilt, but in doing so it must give full weight to the primacy of the jury and their “advantage” in “seeing and hearing” the witnesses: M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487 (M v The Queen) at 492–494; MFA v The Queen [2002] HCA 53; 213 CLR 606 (MFA) at [59]; SKA v The Queen [2011] HCA 13; 243 CLR 400 (SKA) at [22]–[24];…

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 Black v Lawrence

Details

AGLC: Black v Lawrence [2019] ACTSC 266
Case: [2019] ACTSC 266
Decision Date: 30 September 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Black v Lawrence, the respondent sought to appeal against a conviction for common assault, arguing that the findings of the Magistrate were unsafe and unsatisfactory. The case was heard in the County Court of Victoria. The appellant, Black, contended that the evidence did not support the Magistrate’s decision and that the decision itself was flawed. The court was required to determine whether the appeal against the conviction was valid and whether the findings of the Magistrate were indeed unsafe and unsatisfactory.

The court examined the evidence presented during the original trial and assessed the reasoning of the Magistrate in arriving at the decision. The court considered the legal standards for determining whether a conviction is unsafe and unsatisfactory, as well as the weight to be given to the Magistrate’s findings. The court found that the Magistrate had correctly applied the relevant legal principles and had properly considered the evidence. The appeal was dismissed as the court was satisfied that the findings were safe and satisfactory.

The County Court of Victoria upheld the conviction of the appellant, Black, for common assault. The court found no merit in the arguments put forth regarding the Magistrate's decision, affirming that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the original conviction stood.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [89]

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.