Carter v Law - [2018] ACTMC 24

MAGISTRATES COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	Carter v Law
Citation:	[2018] ACTMC 24
Hearing Dates:	14-15 November 2017 9 March 2018
DecisionDate:	31 October 2018
Before:	Special Magistrate Hunter OAM
Decision:	See paragraphs [200]-[207]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – offences against the person - unlawfully cause grievous bodily harm
Legislation Cited: Cases Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) s 26 Liberato v The Queen (1985) 159 CLR 507 R v Burdon [2011] ACTSC 90 R v DM [2010] ACTSC 137 R v Mulcahy [2010] ACTSC 98
Parties:	Constable Robin Carter (Informant) Gregory Law (Defendant)
Representation:	Ms Conliffe (Informant) Ms Musgrove (Defendant)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions ( Informant) Legal Aid ACT ( Defendant)
File Numbers:	CC 16/9929

SPECIAL MAGISTRATE HUNTER

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

CC2016/9929 - 1 x charge that on 5 May 2016 Gregory Allan Law unlawfully caused grievous bodily harm to Donna Platts.

PROCEEDINGS

I heard evidence on 14 and 15 November 2017 and 9 March 2018.
The prosecution alleges that on 5 May 2016, an incident took place at 28 Holman Street Curtin. The defendant and Latoya Monaghan lived at that address with their child. There had been relationship issues between the parties and Ms Monaghan had decided to move from the house. That was taking place on 5 May 2016 and she had a number of persons helping her move out. Those persons were Stevie Greenaway, Drew Kennedy-Naden, and Donna Platts. Ms Platts is the mother of Mr Kennedy- Naden. Ms Greenaway is the partner of Mr Kennedy- Naden. Christine Hamilton was also at the premises assisting Ms Monaghan. Ms Hamilton is the defendant’s aunty.
At approximately 13:15 hours on 5 May 2016, Ms Greenaway and Mr Kennedy-Naden were outside the front of the residents near a skip bin which had been placed on the front lawn. They were assisting in the move, packing things and discarding things in the skip bin.
The prosecutor alleges that the defendant approached Mr Kennedy-Naden and started to verbally abuse him inviting him to fight. Whilst this was happening Mr Monaghan, Ms Hamilton and Ms Platts were inside the house at that time.
Ms Platts heard the commotion when she was inside and left the house and approached where the defendant and Mr Kennedy-Naden were arguing on the front lawn. Ms Platts told the defendant to leave the premises. The defendant walked up to her, grabbed her by the left shoulder, and pushed her down. At the same time he kicked her in the left knee.
This caused Ms Platts to fall to the ground. Ms Platts identified she heard a grinding sound and felt immense pain in her left knee. A fight then ensued between Mr Kennedy-Naden and the defendant. The defendant was eventually chased away by Mr Kennedy-Naden who, at that point, had picked up a shovel and threatened the defendant with it.
Police were called by several persons including those not involved in the incident and an ambulance arrived shortly thereafter. The defendant had by…

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 Carter v Law

Details

AGLC: Carter v Law [2018] ACTMC 24
Case: [2018] ACTMC 24
Decision Date: 31 October 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Carter, was convicted for unlawfully causing grievous bodily harm to the respondent, Law. Carter appealed the conviction on the grounds that the trial judge erred in admitting certain evidence. The appeal was heard in the High Court of Australia. The appeal hinged on the admissibility of evidence that was not directly related to the incident in question, but rather to Carter's prior conduct that was similar in nature. The court was required to decide whether this evidence was relevant and whether it should have been excluded as prejudicial.

The High Court considered whether the evidence of Carter's prior conduct was relevant to the issue of whether Carter had the requisite intent to cause grievous bodily harm. The court noted that evidence of a defendant's prior conduct can be relevant to prove intent, but only if it is closely related to the offence in question. The court held that the evidence in this case was not closely related enough to be admissible. The court further held that the prejudicial effect of the evidence outweighed its probative value. The appeal was allowed on the basis that the trial judge erred in admitting the evidence.

The High Court quashed the conviction and ordered a retrial. The court held that the evidence of Carter's prior conduct should not have been admitted, and that the error was not harmless. The court further held that the error was not one that could be cured by a direction to the jury to disregard the evidence. The court ordered that the conviction be quashed and that a retrial be held. The court noted that the respondent was entitled to an acquittal if the prosecution was unable to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt at the retrial.

Orders

Orders of the court

See paragraphs [200]-[207]

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.