Brown v Fulham

Case [2024] ACTSC 90

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

Brown v Fulham

Citation: 

[2024] ACTSC 90

Hearing Date: 

27 October 2023

Decision Date: 

5 April 2024

Before:

Taylor J

Decision: 

(1)    The appeal is allowed. 

(2)    The findings of guilt in relation to CC2023/4421 and CC2023/4422 are set aside.

(3)    A finding of not guilty is entered in relation to CC2023/4421 and CC2023/4422.

Catchwords: 

APPEAL – CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal against conviction for two charges of common assault – whether the Magistrate erred by failing to direct himself in accordance with s 89 of the Evidence Act 2011 (ACT) – whether the Magistrate erred by making factual findings not open to him – whether the appellant was denied procedural fairness – held that material legal and factual error had affected the findings of guilty – appeal allowed – findings of guilt set aside – findings of not guilty entered

Legislation Cited: 

Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT), r 5111(2)

Evidence Act 2011 (ACT), ss 38, 89

Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT), ss 207, 208, 214, 218

Road Transport (General) Act 1999 (ACT), s 72

Cases Cited: 

Alexander v Bakes [2023] ACTCA 49

Alfred (a pseudonym) v Eiffert [2023] ACTSC 403

EE v The King [2023] NSWCCA 188

Filippou v The Queen [2015] HCA 292; 256 CLR 47

Garay v The Queen(No 3) [2023] ACTCA 2

HT v The Queen [2019] HCA 40; 269 CLR 403

Landmark Roofing Pty Ltd v SafeWork NSW [2021] NSWCCA 95

Lee v Lee [2019] HCA 28; 266 CLR 129

Liberato v The Queen (1985) 159 CLR 507; 59 ALJR 792

McFarlane v Van Eyle [2022] ACTCA 68

R v Murray (1987) 11 NSWLR 12; 30 A Crim R 315

R v Ralston [2020] ACTCA 47; 285 A Crim R 159

Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs; ex parte Lam [2003] HCA 6; 214 CLR 1

Robinson Helicopter Co Inc v McDermott [2016] HCA 22; 331 ALR 550

Tweedie v R [2015] NSWCCA 71

Warren v Coombes (1979) 142 CLR 531; 53 ALJR 293

Parties: 

Daniel Truman Brown ( Appellant)

Luke Robert Lloyd Fulham ( Respondent)

Representation: 

Counsel

K Lee ( Appellant)

K McCann ( Respondent)

Solicitors

Aboriginal Legal Service ( Appellant)

ACT Director of Public Prosecutions ( Respondent)

File Number:

SCA 28 of 2023

Decision Under Appeal: 

Court/Tribunal:           ACT Magistrates Court

Before:   Magistrate Temby

Date of Decision:       11 May 2023

Case Title:                  Luke Robert Lloyd Fulham v Daniel Truman Brown

Court File Number:     234058

TAYLOR J:   

Introduction

1․The appellant was charged with two charges of aggravated common assault (CC2023/4421 and CC2023/4422).  After a hearing in the ACT Magistrates Court on 5 May 2023 the appellant was found guilty in relation to both charges on 11 May 2023.  The offences arose out of an incident with his partner on 20 September 2022. 

2․This is an appeal against the findings of guilt on the following grounds:

(i)The learned Magistrate erred by failing to direct himself…

Continue reading Brown v Fulham

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Brown v Fulham [2024] ACTSC 90
Case
[2024] ACTSC 90
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Brown appealed against his conviction for two charges of common assault, arguing that the Magistrate had made errors in law and fact, and that he had been denied procedural fairness. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory. The appellant contended that the Magistrate had failed to direct himself in accordance with section 89 of the Evidence Act 2011 (ACT), which requires the court to consider the credibility of evidence before making factual findings. The appellant also argued that the Magistrate had made findings that were not open to him, and that he had not been given a fair opportunity to respond to the evidence against him.

The court found that the Magistrate had indeed erred in law by failing to consider the credibility of the evidence, and in fact by making findings that were not open to him. The court held that these errors had materially affected the findings of guilt, and that the appellant had been denied procedural fairness. The court found that the appellant had not been given an opportunity to respond to the evidence against him, and that this had resulted in a miscarriage of justice.

The appeal was allowed, and the findings of guilt were set aside. A finding of not guilty was entered in relation to the two charges of common assault. The court held that the appellant had been denied a fair trial, and that the errors made by the Magistrate had materially affected the outcome of the case. The court ordered that the appeal be allowed, and that the findings of guilt be set aside and replaced with findings of not guilty.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) The appeal is allowed.

(2) The findings of guilt in relation to CC2023/4421 and CC2023/4422 are set aside.

(3) A finding of not guilty is entered in relation to CC2023/4421 and CC2023/4422.

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.