Chandler v Police - [2016] SASC 42

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Magistrates Appeals: Civil)
CHANDLER v POLICE
[2016] SASC 42
Judgment of The Honourable Justice Doyle
31 March 2016
MAGISTRATES - JURISDICTION AND PROCEDURE GENERALLY - PROCEDURE - ORDERS AND CONVICTIONS - SETTING ASIDE AND AMENDMENT - CONVICTIONS - SETTING ASIDE AND REVOCATION
MAGISTRATES - APPEAL AND REVIEW - SOUTH AUSTRALIA - APPEAL TO SUPREME COURT
A Magistrate found the appellant guilty of assaulting his former domestic partner. The appellant appealed on the ground that the Magistrate erred in concluding that the evidence established the appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The appellant also challenged the adequacy of the appellant’s reasons.
Held (per Doyle J), allowing the appeal:
1. The Magistrate’s reasons were inadequate.
2. The Magistrate erred in concluding that the evidence established the appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) s 20(3), s 85(2), s 85(3); Supreme Court Civil Supplementary Rules 2014 (SA) r 238(3), r 238(4), referred to.
Douglass v The Queen (2012) 86 ALJR 1086, discussed.
Liberato v The Queen (1985) 159 CLR 507; R v Lavery (2013) 116 SASR 242; Soulemezis v Dudley (Holdings) Pty Ltd (1987) 10 NSWLR 247; Papps v Police (2000) 77 SASR 210; R v Keyte (2000) 78 SASR 68; Taylor v Hayes (1990) 53 SASR 282; Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118, considered.

CHANDLER v POLICE
[2016] SASC 42
Magistrates Appeal.
DOYLE J:

The appellant, Ben Chandler, was found guilty of one count of assaulting his former domestic partner, Melissa Minerds, contrary to s 20(3) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA).
In this appeal against his conviction, the appellant contends that the Magistrate erred in rejecting his evidence and in finding the charge proved beyond reasonable doubt based upon the complainant’s evidence. He also challenges the adequacy of the Magistrate’s reasons.
Background
The appellant and complainant were in a relationship for approximately nine years. It came to an end in July 2014. They had two daughters, Aliyah (born 2008) and Madison (born 2013). Following the breakdown of the relationship the children lived with the complainant, but the appellant had regular access.
The events in question occurred at about 8.30 am on 2 December 2014 in the car park of Aliyah’s primary school in Morphett Vale. In accordance with their access arrangements the appellant had anticipated collecting both children from the complainant, taking Aliyah into school and then spending the morning with Madison. On that particular day it was the appellant’s birthday, and he said in his evidence that he had made plans for his morning with Madison. While the complainant accepted in her evidence that she knew it was the appellant’s birthday, she said that she did not know that the appellant had made any particular plans. For reasons which were not explored in the evidence, the complainant had left Madison with her (the complainant’s) mother.
The complainant and appellant parked their respective cars a few spaces apart. The complainant’s car was…

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 Chandler v Police

Details

AGLC: Chandler v Police [2016] SASC 42
Case: [2016] SASC 42
Decision Date: 31 March 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Chandler appealed against his conviction for aggravated assault, arguing that the Magistrate erred in rejecting his evidence and in finding the complainant's evidence credible. The central dispute in the case revolves around the physical altercation between the appellant and the complainant in a car park, where the complainant alleged that the appellant pushed her, causing her to fall and resulting in aggravated assault. The appellant denied any physical contact and pleaded not guilty to this charge. The Supreme Court of South Australia was tasked with reviewing the decision of the Magistrate.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Magistrate erred in rejecting the appellant's evidence and finding the complainant's evidence credible, leading to the conviction of aggravated assault. This involved an assessment of the credibility of the respective testimonies and whether the Magistrate's findings were justified. The court also needed to determine if there was any procedural error in the way the appeal was conducted and whether the costs awarded were appropriate.

The court found that the Magistrate did not err in rejecting the appellant's evidence and accepting the complainant's evidence. The complainant's account was coherent and supported by the witness testimony of Lisa Fordham, who observed part of the altercation. The court held that the Magistrate's reasons for preferring the complainant's evidence over the appellant's were sufficient and did not indicate any error in the process. Furthermore, the court was satisfied with the procedural conduct of the appeal and the amount of costs awarded. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence on count 1 were set aside, and a verdict of acquittal was entered.

The final orders included extending the time to file the appeal, granting permission to amend the grounds of appeal, allowing the appeal, setting aside the conviction and sentence on count 1, directing the entry of a verdict of acquittal on that count, and ordering the respondent to pay the appellant's costs of the appeal in the amount of $500 plus the appeal filing fee.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

In this appeal against his conviction, the appellant contends that the Magistrate erred in rejecting his evidence and in finding the charge proved beyond reasonable doubt based upon the complainant’s evidence. He also challenges the adequacy of the Magistrate’s reasons.Background The appellant and complainant were in a relationship for approximately nine years. It came to an end in July 2014. They had two daughters, Aliyah (born 2008) and Madison (born 2013). Following the breakdown of the relationship the children lived with the complainant, but the appellant had regular access. The events in question occurred at about 8.30 am on 2 December 2014 in the car park of Aliyah’s primary school in Morphett Vale. In accordance with their access arrangements the appellant had anticipated collecting both children from the complainant, taking Aliyah into school and then spending the morning with Madison. On that particular day it was the appellant’s birthday, and he said in his evidence that he had made plans for his morning with Madison. While the complainant accepted in her evidence that she knew it was the appellant’s birthday, she said that she did not know that the appellant had made any particular plans. For reasons which were not explored in the evidence, the complainant had left Madison with her (the complainant’s) mother. The complainant and appellant parked their respective cars a few spaces apart. The complainant’s car was parked parallel to the appellant’s car so that the driver’s side of her car faced the passenger side of the appellant’s car. There was no car or other obstruction between the two cars. As the appellant approached the complainant’s car, and he realised that the complainant had not brought Madison with her, he became angry and an argument ensued. The appellant accepts that during the course of that argument he grabbed the complainant’s phone and threw it on the ground, damaging it. He also accepts that he kicked the driver’s side rear door of her car and damaged it. He pleaded guilty to the second and third counts on the information, being charges of damaging property contrary to s 85(2) and s 85(3) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, relating to the damage to the complainant’s phone and car. The complainant alleged that in addition to damaging the phone and car, the appellant pushed her, resulting in her falling to the ground. This allegation was the subject of count 1 on the information. The appellant pleaded not guilty to this count of aggravated assault, and denied making any physical contact with the complainant. Having heard evidence from both the complainant and appellant, as well as another witness called by the prosecution (Lisa Fordham), the Magistrate found the allegation of aggravated assault proved beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence The complainant’s evidence was that as the appellant approached her he was swearing at her. She was holding her phone, but could not remember whether she was using her phone at the time. She was standing on the driver’s side of her car, trying to get Aliyah out of the car. She or Aliyah had opened Aliyah’s door, and Aliyah was slowly climbing out (or at least gathering her bag and undoing her seatbelt), when the appellant kicked the door shut. This left a dent in the rear driver’s side door.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Having heard evidence from both the complainant and appellant, as well as another witness called by the prosecution (Lisa Fordham), the Magistrate found the allegation of aggravated assault proved beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence The complainant’s evidence was that as the appellant approached her he was swearing at her. She was holding her phone, but could not remember whether she was using her phone at the time. She was standing on the driver’s side of her car, trying to get Aliyah out of the car. She or Aliyah had opened Aliyah’s door, and Aliyah was slowly climbing out (or at least gathering her bag and undoing her seatbelt), when the appellant kicked the door shut. This left a dent in the rear driver’s side door. The complainant said that she and the appellant had an argument. During that argument, the appellant pushed her, shoving her on the shoulders with two hands and causing her to fall back onto her bottom on the ground. The complainant had her phone in her hands, but dropped it when she fell. She was only on the ground for a short moment, but when she went to get up the appellant picked up the phone from the ground. He threw it onto the ground, smashing the phone into pieces. The appellant then got Aliyah out of the car and took her with him, making a vulgar remark to the complainant as he walked off. The complainant picked up her phone, had a discussion with Ms Fordham and then left. The complainant said that while she fell onto a gravelly asphalt surface when she was pushed, she did not tear her clothing or break her skin. The appellant’s evidence was that when he arrived Aliyah jumped out of the car to see him. He asked the complainant where Madison was. Other than saying that he could not have her today, the complainant then ignored the defendant and was playing on her phone. The appellant became angry. He snatched the phone from her hands and threw it hard onto the ground, breaking it. They argued about why Madison was not there. The driver’s side rear door of the car was open, and he kicked it shut. He denied pushing or otherwise making physical contact with the complainant, or that she dropped her phone. He said that his daughter was already out of the car when he threw the phone and then kicked the door shut. After the argument and then kicking the door, the appellant walked off with Aliyah. The prosecution also called evidence from Ms Fordham, who was a mother of one of Aliyah’s school friends. Her evidence was that as she drove into the car park (and was about five metres away) she could see the complainant and appellant arguing near the former’s car. As she pulled up to park near the complainant’s car, the appellant grabbed the complainant’s phone out of her hand and threw it on the ground. As she got out of her car, the appellant was yelling at the complainant about Madison not being there. Aliyah was standing between the two of them. After he had finished yelling, the appellant took Aliyah into school. Ms Fordham went to comfort the complainant who was crying.

Decision

Reasons for decision

While accepting that I have the power to alter the sum at which costs are fixed in an appropriate case, in my view there is no reason here to depart from the figure of $500. There was nothing unusual in terms of the complexity of this appeal or the volume of material that was required to be considered. Nor was there anything else about this appeal which would warrant a departure from the figure of $500. I propose to award costs in that amount. Conclusion For the reasons set out above I make the following orders:1. Extend the time within which to file the appeal to 12 January 2016.2. Grant permission for the appellant to amend his grounds of appeal to include proposed ground 5. 3. Allow the appeal.4. Set aside the conviction and sentence in respect of count 1 of the information dated 9 January 2015.5. Direct the entry of a verdict of acquittal in respect of that count.6. Respondent to pay the appellant’s costs of the appeal, fixed in the amount of $500 plus the appeal filing fee.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.