Davison v Craig - [2015] ACTSC 390

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	Davison v Craig
Citation:	[2015] ACTSC 390
Hearing Date(s):	13 October, 16 December 2015
DecisionDate:	16 December 2015
Before:	Robinson AJ
Decision:	The appeal in relation to conviction is dismissed. See [34]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal From and Control over Magistrates – appeal against conviction and sentence - Whether verdict unsafe and unsatisfactory – whether finding of guilt open to Magistrate – self-defence – excessive self-defence – challenge to conviction on ground of unsafe and unsatisfactory dismissed. CRIMINAL LAW – Jurisdiction, Practice and Procedure – Judgment and Punishment - Sentence – whether sentence manifestly excessive – where parties agree the appellant should be re-sentenced – no prior criminal history - non-conviction order – good behaviour order.
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentencing ) Act 2005 (ACT) s 17 Evidence Act 2011 (ACT) s 38 Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT) ss 208, 214 (2)
Cases Cited:	Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118 Grooms v Toohey (2012) 258 FLR 261 M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487 Merrilees v R [2014] ACTCA 10 SKA v The Queen (2011) 243 CLR 400 Zecevic v DPP (1987) 162 CLR 645
Parties:	Hope Davison (Appellant) Jason William Craig (Respondent)
Representation:	Counsel Mr T Sharman (Appellant) Ms S Gul (Respondent)
Solicitors Aboriginal Legal Service (NSW/ACT) (Appellant) ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent)
File Number(s):	SCA 19 of 2015
Decision under appeal:	Court: ACT Magistrates Court Before: Magistrate Boss Date of Decision: 22 January 2015, 6 February 2015 Case Title: Craig v Davison Court File Number: CC2014/2774

ROBINSON AJ:

The Appellant, Hope Davison, appeals from her conviction and sentence on a charge of assault occasioning actual bodily harm.

On 6 February 2015, Magistrate Boss convicted the Appellant and imposed a fine of $300.00 plus court costs.

The Appellant, by a Notice of Appeal dated 10 April 2015, says that “the verdict was unsafe and unsatisfactory” and that “the sentence was manifestly harsh and excessive”.

Jurisdiction

The Appellant appeals pursuant to s 208 of the Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT). Under such an appeal the Supreme Court must have regard to the evidence given in the proceedings out of which the appeal arose and has power to draw inferences of fact (s 214 (2)).

Unsafe and unsatisfactory ground

The decision in SKA v The Queen (2011) 243 CLR 400, at [11] – [14], confirmed the function of an appellate court when asked to determine whether a verdict is unsafe and unsatisfactory was stated by the High Court in M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487, where the majority (Mason CJ, Deane, Dawson and Toohey JJ) said at 493:

Where, notwithstanding that as a matter of law there is evidence to sustain a verdict, a court of criminal appeal is asked to conclude that the verdict is unsafe or unsatisfactory, the question which the court must ask itself is whether it thinks that upon the whole of the evidence it was open to the jury…

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 Davison v Craig

Details

AGLC: Davison v Craig [2015] ACTSC 390
Case: [2015] ACTSC 390
Decision Date: 16 December 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Davison v Craig involves an appeal against a conviction and sentence issued by a Magistrate's Court. The appellant, Craig, contested the decision on the grounds that the verdict was unsafe and unsatisfactory, with particular focus on the application of self-defence principles in the context of the case. Craig argued that the finding of guilt was not open to the Magistrate and that any self-defence invoked was excessive. The appeal was heard in the higher court, which examined the legal issues presented and the evidence available to the Magistrate.

The central legal issues in this appeal revolved around the correctness of the Magistrate's decision in relation to the self-defence plea and the proportionality of the sentence imposed. The court had to determine if the verdict was supported by the evidence and if the finding of guilt was open to the Magistrate, considering the principles of self-defence. Additionally, the court assessed whether the sentence was manifestly excessive and if the agreed-upon resentencing was appropriate, given Craig's lack of prior criminal history.

The court found that the Magistrate's verdict was supported by the evidence, and the finding of guilt was open to them. The appeal against the conviction on the grounds of being unsafe and unsatisfactory was dismissed. Regarding the sentence, both parties agreed that a resentencing was necessary. Given Craig's non-conviction order and good behaviour order, the court considered the appropriate sentence to be one that reflected the agreed terms. The appeal concerning the sentence was addressed by agreeing to the resentencing terms.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal in relation to the conviction was dismissed. The court also accepted the parties' agreement on resentencing Craig, ensuring that the new sentence reflected the agreed terms and the circumstances of the case.

Orders

Orders of the court

The appeal in relation to conviction is dismissed.

See [34]

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.