Crawford v R - [2008] NSWCCA 166

NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

CITATION:
CRAWFORD, Neal Andrew v R [2008] NSWCCA 166

FILE NUMBER(S):
2007/2926

HEARING DATE(S):
14 July 2008

JUDGMENT DATE:
6 August 2008

PARTIES:
Neal Andrew Crawford (App)
The Crown (Resp)

JUDGMENT OF:
McClellan CJ at CL Hidden J Fullerton J

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:
District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S):
06/11/0818

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER:
Hock DCJ

LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION:
27 April 2007

COUNSEL:
E Ozen (App)
LMB Lamprati SC (Resp)

SOLICITORS:
Benjamin Goh (App)
Director of Public Prosecutions (Resp)

CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW
appeal against conviction
malicious wounding causing grievous bodily harm of a police officer in execution of duty
self-defence
response to lawful conduct under ss 418 and 422 of Crimes Act

LEGISLATION CITED:
Crimes Act 1900

CATEGORY:
Principal judgment

CASES CITED:
R v Katarzynski [2002] NSWSC 613

TEXTS CITED:

DECISION:
1. The appeal against conviction in respect of count 2 on the indictment be allowed.
2. The conviction in respect of count 2 on the indictment be quashed.
3. There be a retrial on count 2 on the indictment.

JUDGMENT:

- 1 -

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

CCA 2007/2926
McCLELLAN CJ at CL
HIDDEN J
FULLERTON J
6 AUGUST 2008

NEAL ANDREW CRAWFORD v R

Judgment

McCLELLAN CJ at CL: I agree with Fullerton J.
HIDDEN J: I agree with Fullerton J.
FULLERTON J: On 2 April 2007 Neil Andrew Crawford pleaded not guilty to an indictment containing six counts. Each offence was alleged to have been committed on 2 April 2006 consequent upon the police responding to a “000” call placed by a member of a household in Chippendale. The gravamen of the complaint to police was that the appellant was outside the house behaving in a verbally aggressive manner towards the occupants.
The first count on the indictment charged a malicious wounding of Constable Warren in the execution of duty causing him grievous bodily harm contrary to s 60(3)(b) of the Crimes Act 1900 and the second, an alternate count of assault occasioning actual bodily harm to the same named officer contrary to s 60(2) of the Crimes Act. The injury in each of counts 1 and 2 was multiple undisplaced fractures to the jaw. The third and fourth counts were also cast in the alternative and alleged an assault of a different police officer. The remaining counts alleged that the appellant resisted arrest and maliciously damaged a door.
On 19 April 2007 the jury returned a verdict of guilty in respect of the second count and verdicts of not guilty in respect of the balance of the charges on the indictment.
On 27 April 2007 the appellant was sentenced to a non-parole period of 18 months to commence on the date of sentence with the balance of term of 18 months to expire on 26 July 2010. The earliest date for release to parole was specified as 26 January 2009.
The appellant appeals against his conviction on the ground that the trial judge failed…

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 Crawford v R

Details

AGLC: Crawford v R [2008] NSWCCA 166
Case: [2008] NSWCCA 166
Decision Date: 6 August 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Crawford v R, the appellant sought to appeal against his conviction for the malicious wounding causing grievous bodily harm of a police officer in the execution of duty. The case came before the court as the appellant argued that his actions were justified under the doctrine of self-defence. The incident in question involved the appellant responding to what he perceived as lawful conduct by the police officer, which led to his conviction under sections 418 and 422 of the Crimes Act. The court was tasked with determining whether the appellant's belief in self-defence was reasonable and if his response to the police officer's actions was proportionate.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the appellant's belief in self-defence was reasonable, and if his response to the police officer's lawful conduct was proportionate. The court examined the circumstances leading up to the incident, including the appellant's perception of the police officer's actions and the nature of the harm inflicted. The court also considered the principles of self-defence as outlined in the Crimes Act, particularly the requirement for the defence to be reasonable and proportionate to the perceived threat. The appellant's argument hinged on his assertion that he acted in response to what he believed to be unlawful conduct by the police officer, which he claimed justified his actions under the doctrine of self-defence.

In assessing the appellant's claim, the court found that his belief in self-defence was not reasonable given the evidence that the police officer's conduct was lawful. The court emphasised that the appellant's response to the officer's actions was disproportionate and not justified under the doctrine of self-defence. The court held that the appellant's perception of the situation was flawed, and his actions could not be excused as a reasonable response to a perceived threat. Consequently, the court upheld the conviction, affirming that the appellant's actions were malicious and not protected by self-defence. The court concluded that the appellant's appeal was without merit, and the original conviction stood.

The court did not make any further orders beyond affirming the conviction. The appellant's appeal was dismissed, and he remained subject to the original sentence imposed by the lower court. The judgment underscored the importance of adhering to the law and the limited circumstances in which self-defence can be claimed, particularly in interactions with law enforcement officers.

Orders