Connelly v Hayes - [2024] ACTSC 26

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	Connelly v Hayes
Citation:	[2024] ACTSC 26
Hearing Date:	9 February 2024
Decision Date:	9 February 2024
Before:	Mossop J
Decision:	1. The appeal is dismissed and the convictions on charges CAN819/2023, CAN820/2023 and CAN821/2023 are confirmed.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL – Appeal from Magistrates Court – appeal against finding of guilt – breach of Family Violence Order – aggravated common assault – causing damage to property not exceeding $5000 – punch to the face causing injury and breaking dentures – ground of appeal either assertion of unreasonable verdict or factual error on part of the magistrate in finding facts proved beyond reasonable doubt – whether magistrate correctly followed Murray and Liberato directions – whether open to magistrate to accept complainant’s evidence where there is no physical evidence to corroborate it – whether open to magistrate to reject appellant’s bare denial – turns on own facts – appeal dismissed
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), ss 24, 26, 48C, 48D Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT), ss 208(1)(b), 218(1)(a)
Cases Cited:	Alexander v Bakes [2023] ACTCA 49 Alfred (a pseudonym) v Eiffert [2023] ACTSC 403 Fox v Percy [2003] HCA 22; 214 CLR 118 Garay v The Queen (No 3) [2023] ACTCA 2 Huxley v The Queen [2023] HCA 40; 98 ALJR 62 Ji v Stone [2023] ACTSC 54 Liberato v The Queen (1985) 159 CLR 507 R v Murray (1987) 11 NSWLR 12 Robinson v The Queen [1999] HCA 42; 197 CLR 162
Texts Cited:	Judicial Commission of New South Wales, Criminal Trial Courts Bench Book (last updated Update 75, December 2023)
Parties:	Todd Connelly ( Appellant) Jordan Hayes ( Respondent)
Representation:	Counsel E Chen ( Appellant) S Jerome ( Respondent)
Solicitors Legal Aid ( Appellant) Director of Public Prosecutions ( Respondent)
File Number:	SCA 44 of 2023
Decision Under Appeal:	Court/Tribunal: ACT Magistrates Court Before: Magistrate Stewart Date of Decision: 27 July 2023 Case Title: The Police v Connelly Court File Numbers: CAN 819 of 2023 CAN 820 of 2023 CAN 821 of 2023

MOSSOP J:

Introduction

This is an appeal against a decision of a magistrate made on 27 July 2023. The appellant was found guilty of the following offences:
(a)Engaging in conduct that contravened a Family Violence Order (FVO).
(b)Aggravated common assault.
(c)Causing damage to property not exceeding $5000.

The prosecution case

The prosecution case was that the appellant was the subject of an FVO which prevented him from coming within 70 m of the complainant. The appellant and the complainant had been in a relationship for approximately eight years. They lived separately. At the complainant’s request, the appellant had collected her from another house at about five o’clock in the morning. After she had been at the appellant’s house for some hours, he is alleged to have punched her in the mouth, causing her to fall over and breaking her dentures. She was then alleged to have left the house, returned to her…

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 Connelly v Hayes

Details

AGLC: Connelly v Hayes [2024] ACTSC 26
Case: [2024] ACTSC 26
Decision Date: 9 February 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Connelly was convicted in the Magistrates Court of a breach of a Family Violence Order, aggravated common assault, and causing damage to property not exceeding $5000. The complainant in the case was Hayes. Connelly appealed against his conviction, arguing that the verdict was unreasonable or that the magistrate erred in finding the facts proved beyond reasonable doubt. The appeal was heard in a higher court.

The appeal raised several legal issues, primarily concerning the standard of proof required for conviction and the evaluation of evidence by the magistrate. The court had to determine whether the magistrate correctly followed the directions from Murray and Liberato cases when deciding to convict based on the complainant’s evidence without physical evidence. Additionally, the court needed to consider whether it was open to the magistrate to accept the complainant’s evidence and reject the appellant's bare denial. These issues turned on the facts of the case and the credibility of the evidence presented.

The court found that the magistrate had correctly applied the law and properly evaluated the evidence. The court held that it was open to the magistrate to convict based on the complainant’s testimony alone, even in the absence of physical evidence. The court also found that it was open to the magistrate to reject the appellant's bare denial as insufficient to rebut the complainant's evidence. The appeal was dismissed, and the convictions were confirmed.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal is dismissed and the convictions on charges CAN819/2023, CAN820/2023 and CAN821/2023 are 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.