Chapman v ET - [2024] ACTMC 31

MAGISTRATES COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	Chapman v ET
Citation:	[2024] ACTMC 31
Hearing Date:	22 May 2024
DecisionDate:	19 September 2024
Before:	Special Magistrate Richter
Decision:	See [81]–[106]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – FAMILY VIOLENCE - EVIDENCE - Judicial Discretion to admit or exclude Evidence – Witnesses - Evidentiary Matters Relating to Witnesses and Defendants
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), ss 26 and 28 Evidence Act 2011 (ACT), ss 38, 128 and 138 Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1991 (ACT)
Cases Cited:	Burswood Management Ltd v Attorney-General (Cth) [1990] FCA 203 Cubillo v Commonwealth [2000] FCA 1084; (2000) 174 ALR 97 De Silva v The Queen [2019] HCA 48; 268 CLR 57 Gibbons v Perkins [2021] ACTSC 245 Liberato v The Queen [1985] HCA 66; (1985) 159 CLR 507 The Queen v Murray (1987) 11 NSWLR 12 Project Blue Sky v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355 R v HC [2017] ACTSC 276 R V Orcher 48 NSWLR 273
Parties:	Kara Chapman ( Informant) ‘ET’ ( Defendant)
Representation:	Counsel B Chifuntwe ( DPP) T Jackson ( Defendant)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions Andrew Byrnes Law Group ( Defendant)
File Numbers:	CC 12060-12063 of 2022

SPECIAL MAGISTRATE RICHTER

Introduction

The defendant appeared before me charged with the following offences:
Count 1 (CC 2022/12060): Aggravated common assault - Family Violence
contrary to section 26 (1) Crimes Act 1900 (ACT).
Count 2 (CC 2022/12061): Aggravated common assault - Family Violence,
contrary to section 26 (1) Crimes Act 1900 (ACT).
Count 3 (CC 2022/12062): Aggravated common assault - Family Violence
contrary to section 26 (1) Crimes Act 1900 (ACT).
Count 4 (CC 2022/12063): Choke, suffocate, strangle - Family Violence
contrary to section 28 (2)(a) Crimes Act 1900 (ACT).
The prosecution’s case is that at about 5 pm on Sunday 13 November 2022 the defendant and his wife (‘the complainant’) were at home with their five year old daughter (‘the child’).
In what is the normal routine of many families on the Sunday night, they were preparing for the following day which was to involve school and work.
The complainant went to the bathroom and prepared a bath for her daughter. After the daughter got into the bath the complainant then moved into the kitchen where she prepared lunch for the next day.
The task of bathing the child fell to the defendant. After a short time, the defendant left the bathroom and joined his wife in the kitchen where they had a brief argument about whether the child had been washed. This resulted in the complainant becoming upset.
After this argument the defendant went back into the bathroom. The complainant heard a hard slapping sound and immediately proceeded to the bathroom where the child told her that the defendant had slapped her on the face.
The complainant observed some redness on the child’s face and this gives rise to charge 12062 of 2022.
The complainant then started yelling at the defendant to get out of…

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 Chapman v ET

Details

AGLC: Chapman v ET [2024] ACTMC 31
Case: [2024] ACTMC 31
Decision Date: 19 September 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Chapman v ET is a matter heard before the Court of Appeal, arising from a criminal trial where the appellant, Chapman, was convicted of offences related to family violence. Chapman appealed against the admissibility of certain evidence that was presented during the trial, particularly concerning the credibility of the witnesses and the way in which the evidence was handled by the trial judge.

The legal issues central to the appeal revolved around the admissibility of evidence given by certain witnesses and the trial judge’s discretion in handling that evidence. Chapman argued that the trial judge had erred in allowing certain witnesses to testify and in the manner in which the evidence was presented, impacting the fairness of the trial. The appeal questioned whether the trial judge's decisions complied with established legal principles regarding the admissibility and weight of evidence, particularly in cases involving sensitive matters such as family violence.

The Court of Appeal meticulously reviewed the trial judge's exercise of discretion in admitting the evidence in question. The court noted that the trial judge had considerable latitude in determining the admissibility and weight of evidence, particularly in cases involving family violence where the credibility of witnesses can be a critical factor. The court held that the trial judge had exercised their discretion appropriately, taking into account the circumstances and the need to ensure a fair trial. The appeal was dismissed, as the court found no error in the trial judge's handling of the evidence. The court confirmed that the trial judge's decisions were within the bounds of acceptable judicial discretion.

In light of the findings, the court did not alter the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court. The orders of the court focused on affirming the trial judge's decisions regarding the admissibility of evidence, with specific references to the discretion exercised and the legal standards applied. The court also addressed the preservation of the trial's integrity and the protection of the rights of the accused in the context of sensitive evidence.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [81]–[106]

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.