Bowden v Hales - [2001] NTSC 96

Bowden v Hales [2001] NTSC 96
PARTIES:JAMES ROBERT BOWDEN
and

PETER WILLIAM HALES

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
JURISDICTION:  SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY EXERCISING APPELLATE JURISDICTION
FILE NO:JA 69 OF 2000 (20001664)
DELIVERED:  2 November 2001
HEARING DATES:  15 October 2001
JUDGMENT OF:  MILDREN J
REPRESENTATION:
Counsel:
Appellant:M Little
Respondent:  G Dooley
Solicitors:
Appellant:M J Little
Respondent:  Director of Public Prosecutions
Judgment category classification:    C
Judgment ID Number:
Number of pages:  9

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT DARWIN
No JA 69 of 2000 (20001664)
Bowden v Hales [2001] NTSC 96

BETWEEN:
JAMES ROBERT BOWDEN

Appellant
and:
PETER WILLIAM HALES

Respondent

CORAM: MILDREN J
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered 2 November 2001)
MILDREN J:

The appellant was convicted of one count of aggravated assault, the circumstance of aggravation being that he, being an adult, assaulted a child under the age of 16 years. The learned Magistrate imposed a partly suspended term of imprisonment. The appellant appeals against his conviction on a number of grounds set out in the notice of appeal. However that may be, there is really only one ground of appeal, the other grounds being particulars of that ground, viz., that the finding of guilt is unsafe and unsatisfactory.
The learned Magistrate's findings of fact are as follows. On the evening of 19 September 2000, a 13 year old boy called Aaron, an older boy called Tim and another boy, attended at the appellant's home where they stole some reloaded bullets belonging to the appellant. That evening, Aaron's stepfather (RJ) became aware of the theft and told Aaron to get the stolen bullets and the two other boys involved the following day and that he would take the boys and the bullets to the appellant, return the bullets and the boys would apologise. Instead of doing this, on the following day Aaron went to the appellant's caravan alone. He had with him the bullets in a bag, intending to return them to the appellant. The appellant lived in a caravan at a Darwin caravan park. Aaron entered the annex to the caravan and knocked on the door. The appellant answered the door. Aaron said: "I brought your bullets back." The appellant said: "Why did you bring the bullets back?" The appellant was angry and started speaking to Aaron in a loud and aggressive voice. He then punched Aaron twice to the face, knocking him to the ground. The appellant then went down next to him and banged Aaron's head on to the ground. The floor to the annex was concrete with carpet in the area. The appellant picked up a piece of concrete and tried to hit Aaron's hand with it but missed. There are no specific findings about what happened thereafter, but according to Aaron's evidence, which the learned Magistrate accepted, the appellant then picked him up and pushed him out of the annex. He then ran away, bleeding from the nose and went to the amenities…

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 Bowden v Hales

Details

AGLC: Bowden v Hales [2001] NTSC 96
Case: [2001] NTSC 96
Decision Date: 2 November 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Bowden v Hales, the appellant, James Robert Bowden, appealed against his conviction of aggravated assault on a minor. The respondent, Peter William Hales, was the complainant in the matter. The appeal was heard in the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory, exercising appellate jurisdiction. Bowden contested his conviction on various grounds, though essentially the appeal centred on the contention that the finding of guilt was unsafe and unsatisfactory. Bowden's conviction was based on an incident where he assaulted a 13-year-old boy, Aaron, after Aaron returned stolen ammunition to Bowden's caravan. Bowden claimed self-defence and provocation, but the learned Magistrate rejected his evidence and accepted Aaron's and his stepfather's accounts.

The court examined whether the force used by Bowden was justified under the common intercourse of life, and whether the assault was excused by provocation. The court concluded that the force used went beyond what was reasonably necessary for common interactions, and that there was no sufficient provocation to excuse the assault. The court also dismissed Bowden's appeal against sentence, finding that the sentence was not based on erroneous facts, and that there was no miscarriage of justice. The appeal was ultimately dismissed, and Bowden's conviction and sentence were upheld.

Orders