Buttriss v Jarvis

Case [2024] ACTSC 247

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

Buttriss v Jarvis

Citation: 

[2024] ACTSC 247

Hearing Date: 

23 February 2024

Decision Date: 

6 August 2024

Before:

Taylor J

Decision: 

1.    The appeal is dismissed. 

2.    The conviction for the charge of aggravated common assault (CC2023/2285) is confirmed. 

Catchwords: 

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL – Appeal from Magistrates Court – appeal against conviction – whether a miscarriage of justice occurred – whether the verdict was unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence – whether the Special Magistrate made errors of law – assessment of the credibility of prosecution witnesses – error not established – each ground of appeal not upheld – appeal dismissed – conviction confirmed

Legislation Cited: 

Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) ss 26(1), 27, 28

Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1991 (ACT)

Evidence Act 2011 (ACT) ss 55, 78, 97, 192A

Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT) ss 207, 208, 214, div 3.10.2

Cases Cited: 

Alexander v Bakes [2023] ACTCA 49

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

Fagan v Commissioner of Metropolitan Police [1969] 1 QB 439

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

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

Liberato v The Queen [1985] HCA 66; 159 CLR 507

Lithgow City Council v Jackson [2011] HCA 36; 244 CLR 352

M v The Queen [1994] HCA 63; 181 CLR 487

McElholum v Hughes [2016] ACTCA 37

McFarlane v Van Eyle [2022] ACTCA 68

Robinson Helicopter Co Inc v McDermott [2016] HCA 22; 90 ALJR 679.

Smith v The Queen [2001] HCA 50; 206 CLR 650

Warren v Coombes [1979] HCA 9; 142 CLR 531

Zecevic v Director of Public Prosecutions (Vic) [1987] HCA 26; 162 CLR 645

Parties: 

Steven Buttriss ( Appellant)

Blain Jarvis ( Respondent)

Representation: 

Counsel

Self-represented ( Appellant)

C Muthurajah ( Respondent)

Solicitors

Self-represented ( Appellant)

ACT Director of Public Prosecutions

File Number:

SCA 41 of 2023

Decision Under Appeal: 

Court/Tribunal:           ACT Magistrates Court

Before:   Special Magistrate Urbas

Date of Decision:       28 June 2023

Case Title:                 The Police v Steven Buttriss

Court File Number(s): CAN 2284/2023

  CAN 2285/2023

TAYLOR J:   

Introduction

1․The appellant was charged with one charge of aggravated choking (CC2023/2284), contrary to s 28(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) (the Crimes Act) and in the alternative, a charge of aggravated common assault (CC2023/2285), contrary to s 26(1) of the Crimes Act.  The circumstance of aggravation was that the offence occurred in a family violence context.  The appellant was found guilty of the alternative charge on 28 June 2023 after a hearing in the ACT Magistrates Court that commenced on 14 June 2023. 

2․This is an appeal against that finding of guilt.

Grounds of appeal

3․The appellant was self-represented at the appeal hearing and the documents filed in support of the appeal identified six grounds of appeal.  In summary, those grounds are:

(i)Ground One: That a miscarriage of justice occurred.

(ii)Ground Two: That there was insufficient evidence…

Continue reading Buttriss v Jarvis

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Buttriss v Jarvis [2024] ACTSC 247
Case
[2024] ACTSC 247
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Buttriss v Jarvis, the appellant sought to overturn his conviction for aggravated common assault. The case was heard in the higher court following an appeal from the Magistrates Court. The appellant argued that a miscarriage of justice had occurred and that the verdict was unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence. The appellant also claimed that the Special Magistrate made errors of law, specifically in the assessment of the credibility of the prosecution witnesses.

The court was required to determine whether the appeal was valid and whether the appellant had demonstrated any errors on the part of the Special Magistrate that would warrant a new trial. The primary legal issues revolved around the evaluation of the evidence presented and the credibility of the witnesses, as well as whether any legal errors were made by the Special Magistrate. The court had to consider the weight and admissibility of the evidence, the consistency and reliability of the witnesses' testimonies, and the overall fairness of the trial process.

The court meticulously examined the evidence and the proceedings of the original trial. It found that the Special Magistrate had properly assessed the credibility of the witnesses and had not erred in their legal assessments. The evidence presented was deemed sufficient to support the verdict, and the court found no grounds for overturning the conviction. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the conviction for the charge of aggravated common assault was confirmed.

The court's decision underscored the importance of a fair trial and the thorough evaluation of evidence and witness credibility. The court confirmed the conviction, highlighting the necessity for appeals to demonstrate clear legal errors or miscarriages of justice to be successful.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. The conviction for the charge of aggravated common assault (CC2023/2285) 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.