Daye v Pryce

Daye v Pryce [2000] NTSC 82

PARTIES:ROY FRANCIS DAYE

v

LEONARD DAVID PRYCE

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY

JURISDICTION:  SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY EXERCISING TERRITORY JURISDICTION

FILE NO:JA 43 of 2000 (9906822)

DELIVERED:  3 October 2000

HEARING DATES:  29 September 2000

JUDGMENT OF:  RILEY J

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:

Appellant:Mr G Georgiou

Respondent:  Mr R Noble

Solicitors:

Appellant:Northern Territory Legal Aid Commission

Respondent:  Director of Public Prosecution

Judgment category classification:    B

Judgment ID Number:  ril00023

Number of pages:  8

ril00023

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT ALICE SPRINGS

Daye v Pryce [2000] NTSC82
No. JA43 of 2000

IN THE MATTER OF the Justices Act

AND IN THE MATTER OF an appeal
  against conviction and sentence handed

down in the Court of Summary Jurisdiction at Alice Springs

BETWEEN:

ROY FRANCIS DAYE

Appellant

AND:

LEONARD DAVID PRYCE

Respondent

CORAM:    RILEY J

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(Delivered 3 October 2000)

1. On 6 June 2000 Roy Francis Daye was found guilty in the Court of Summary Jurisdiction at Alice Springs of having unlawfully assaulted Robert Thornton on 25 March 1999 and of having resisted a member of the police force in the execution of his duty on the same day.  He appeals against those convictions.

1. The matter was heard in the Court of Summary Jurisdiction over a lengthy period of time.  It occupied some twelve hearing days.  The convictions arose out of incidents at the Simpson’s Gap Bar at an Alice Springs Hotel in the early hours of the morning of 25 March 1999.  The appellant had been drinking at the bar as had two brothers Warwick Thornton and Robert Thornton.  The appellant was at the bar independently of the brothers.  At about 2.30am on 25 March 1999 there was an altercation between the appellant and Warwick Thornton.  At the conclusion of that altercation Warwick Thornton was left unconscious on the floor.  Mr Robert Thornton then became involved and there was a fight between him and the appellant inside the bar area.  Robert Thornton was subsequently moved by security personnel to a position outside of the bar area and in the foyer of the hotel.  He was then spoken to by police.  Whilst he was talking to police the appellant emerged from the bar area and was seen by Mr Thornton.  Mr Thornton pointed to the appellant and identified him to the police as being the person involved in the altercation with his brother.  The evidence is a little unclear but it seems the appellant saw Mr Thornton in the foyer and rushed towards where he was standing.  Mr Thornton acted in a way which suggested that he was wishing to or willing to continue the altercation that had commenced inside the bar.  Police officers came between the two and restrained them.  The appellant endeavoured to strike Mr Thornton and, although his Worship failed to make such a finding, there is some suggestion in the evidence that he was successful. 

2. As a result of the evening’s…