Champion v The Queen - [2020] NSWDC 929

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Champion v R [2020] NSWDC 929
Hearing dates: 22 September 2020
Date of orders: 22 September 2020
Decision date: 22 September 2020
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Neilson DCJ
Decision:
The appeal is dismissed.

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW – CONVICTION APPEAL
A found guilty of Common Assault. All four elements of common assault proved beyond reasonable doubt. A sought to justify pushing C out of her path on the basis that C was obstructing the footpath and/or in self-defence.
Obstructing the footpath is a criminal offence. That did not give A the right to commit an offence. C was merely standing on the footpath talking to someone else. C offered no threat to A. No defence of self-defence available.

Legislation Cited:
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
DPP v JWH (unreported), 17 October 1997
R v Burstow; R v Ireland [1998] 1 AC 147

Texts Cited:
Nil

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: R – Crown
Appellant – Margaret Ruth Champion
Representation: Crown
G. Rixon
Appellant
Self-represented

File Number(s): 2019/00154113
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

HIS HONOUR: This is an appeal against a conviction recorded by Magistrate Love sitting in the Downing Centre Local Court on 17 October 2019. The appellant was charged with assaulting Roya Djalali at approximately 1:30pm on 15 May 2019 at Surry Hills in this State. His Honour found the offence proved, recorded a conviction and placed the appellant on a conditional release order pursuant to s 9(1)(a) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.
The assault alleged arose out of a preceding animus between the appellant and Djalali. According to evidence given by the appellant, she had been living for 17 years at a Department of Housing complex at Little Norton Street, Surry Hills. Ms Djalali was living in unit number 9. As I understand the evidence, the appellant was living at unit number 3. According to exhibit 2 Ms Djalali had been living at unit number 9 for about four years at the time of the assault alleged. At T31.22 the appellant said this:

“I have to say that I’ve have had a long history of conflict with Ms Djalali, and she absolutely terrifies me.”

At T32.29 the appellant said this:

“I know Ms Djalali very well, she has been there since 2012, and there have been similar incidents to this in the past. I’ve been subjected to considerable harassment from Ms Djalali, and I have adopted the position that I really don’t want anything to do with her, that I don’t wish to speak to her when she approaches me.”

At the rear of the property at Little Norton Street, Surry Hills, is a communal garden which has been in some way divided into separate plots or lots that tenants look after. There had been disagreement between Ms Djalali and the appellant about the common garden area and on 14 May 2019, which was a Tuesday, there had been disagreement between the two. Perhaps to be fair to…

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 Champion v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Champion v The Queen [2020] NSWDC 929
Case: [2020] NSWDC 929
Decision Date: 22 September 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Champion v The Queen, the appellant sought to appeal his conviction for common assault. The appellant had been found guilty of pushing a complainant, C, out of his path, which the court determined constituted an assault. The appellant argued that his actions were justified because C was obstructing the footpath and/or that he acted in self-defence. The High Court of Australia was tasked with determining the validity of these defences.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether obstructing the footpath justified the appellant's actions and whether the defence of self-defence was applicable. The court considered the nature of the obstruction and whether C's presence on the footpath posed an immediate threat to the appellant. It was established that while obstructing a footpath is a criminal offence, it does not justify committing another offence. Furthermore, C was not posing any threat to the appellant, as he was merely standing and talking to another person.

The court found that the appellant's actions were not justified by the obstruction of the footpath. There was no reasonable basis for the appellant to believe that his actions were necessary to prevent an imminent threat from C. The court emphasised that obstructing the footpath does not grant someone the right to assault another person. Additionally, the court concluded that there was no self-defence available in this scenario, as C did not pose any immediate threat to the appellant. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal, upholding the original conviction for common assault.

Orders

Orders of the court

The appeal is dismissed.

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	Champion v R [2020] NSWDC 929
Hearing dates:	22 September 2020
Date of orders:	22 September 2020
Decision date:	22 September 2020
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Neilson DCJ
Decision:	The appeal is dismissed.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – CONVICTION APPEAL A found guilty of Common Assault. All four elements of common assault proved beyond reasonable doubt. A sought to justify pushing C out of her path on the basis that C was obstructing the footpath and/or in self-defence. Obstructing the footpath is a criminal offence. That did not give A the right to commit an offence. C was merely standing on the footpath talking to someone else. C offered no threat to A. No defence of self-defence available.
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Cases Cited:	DPP v JWH (unreported), 17 October 1997 R v Burstow; R v Ireland [1998] 1 AC 147
Texts Cited:	Nil
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	R – Crown Appellant – Margaret Ruth Champion
Representation:	Crown G. Rixon Appellant Self-represented
File Number(s):	2019/00154113
Publication restriction:	Nil