Degampathi Jayasekra - [2018] NSWDC 59

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Degampathi Jayasekra [2018] NSWDC 59
Hearing dates: 27 February 2018, 6 March, further written submissions received 16 March and 21 March 2018
Date of orders: 23 March 2018
Decision date: 23 March 2018
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Judge AC Scotting
Decision:
1. Appeal against conviction is dismissed.
2. I confirm the penalty imposed by the Magistrate

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – property offences - destroy or damage property – finding of guilt – presumption of advancement
APPEAL – appeal and review – conviction appeal – test- balance of probabilities – review of evidence – review of magistrate’s decision
OTHER – domestic relationship - damage
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 s.18(1)
Crimes Act 1900 s.195(1)(a)
Cases Cited: AG v Director of Public Prosecutions [2015] NSWCA 218
Bandana v Director of Public Prosecutions [2016] NSWCA 140
Charara v R [2006] NSWCCA 244
Dyason v Butterworth [2015] NSWCA 52
Englebrecht v Director of Public Prosecutions [2016] NSWCA 290
Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118
Gianoutsas v Glykis [2006] NSWCCA 137
Irons v Smallpiece (1819) 2 B & Ald 551 (106 ER 467)
Nelson v Nelson (1995) 184 CLR 538 at 600
Silver v Silver [1958] 1 All ER 523
Texts Cited: J D Heydon and M J Leeming, Jacobs’ Law of Trusts, Lexis Nexis Butterworths 7th ed, 2006 (Jacobs)
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Degampathi Jayasekra (Appellant)
Regina (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
Solicitors:
Thomas Henry Bray Lawyer (Appellant)
C Hyland, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2017/00167498
Publication restriction: None

Judgment

Degampathi Jayasekra (the appellant) appeals against the conviction entered by his Honour Magistrate Longly on 18 August 2017 at the Manly Local Court.
The appellant pleaded not guilty to one count of destroy or damage property contrary to section 195(1)(a) Crimes Act 1900.
The issue in the Local Court and on appeal was whether the property damaged was property of another or property of the appellant and another.

Facts

The prosecution case, which was accepted by the appellant, was that on 4 June 2017, in the context of a domestic argument that he damaged a laptop computer and mobile telephone.
The appellant’s case was that he was the sole owner of the items and thereby could not be found guilty of the offence.
It was common ground that the items had been purchased by the appellant and at the time of handing possession of them to his wife (the complainant) that he did not expressly say that they were gifts.
The complainant had possession of and day to day use of both items. The laptop was used by her for her studies and on occasions was made available to the appellant or their children. The mobile telephone was used by the complainant more exclusively.

The relevant law

The applicable principles to be applied in determination of the appeal are as follows.
Section 18(1) Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 provides that the appeal is a rehearing on the certified transcripts of evidence,…

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 Degampathi Jayasekra

Details

AGLC: Degampathi Jayasekra [2018] NSWDC 59
Case: [2018] NSWDC 59
Decision Date: 23 March 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case, Degampathi Jayasekra appealed his conviction for damaging property. The property damage occurred in the context of a domestic relationship, and the case was heard in the appellate court. The key issue before the court was whether the appellant was guilty of damaging property, specifically a door, during a domestic dispute. The court was also tasked with determining whether the evidence presented in the case supported the conviction beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court examined the evidence presented at the trial, including witness testimonies and the circumstances surrounding the incident. It was noted that the presumption of advancement applies in domestic relationships, meaning that if property damage occurs within such a context, it is presumed that the person who caused the damage is the one who benefited from the act. The court considered whether the evidence supported the conclusion that the appellant caused the damage and whether this conclusion was reached beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court found that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, as the appellant had been seen damaging the door, and the circumstances of the incident aligned with the presumption of advancement. The court concluded that the appellant's actions were deliberate and that the damage was caused with the intent to benefit himself. The court found that the balance of probabilities favoured the appellant's guilt, and thus dismissed the appeal against the conviction.

The court confirmed the penalty imposed by the magistrate, and the appeal was dismissed. The court's decision stands, and the appellant remains convicted of damaging property in the context of a domestic relationship.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal against conviction is dismissed.

2. I confirm the penalty imposed by the Magistrate

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	Degampathi Jayasekra [2018] NSWDC 59
Hearing dates:	27 February 2018, 6 March, further written submissions received 16 March and 21 March 2018
Date of orders:	23 March 2018
Decision date:	23 March 2018
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Judge AC Scotting
Decision:	1. Appeal against conviction is dismissed. 2. I confirm the penalty imposed by the Magistrate
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – property offences - destroy or damage property – finding of guilt – presumption of advancement APPEAL – appeal and review – conviction appeal – test- balance of probabilities – review of evidence – review of magistrate’s decision OTHER – domestic relationship - damage
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 s.18(1) Crimes Act 1900 s.195(1)(a)
Cases Cited:	AG v Director of Public Prosecutions [2015] NSWCA 218 Bandana v Director of Public Prosecutions [2016] NSWCA 140 Charara v R [2006] NSWCCA 244 Dyason v Butterworth [2015] NSWCA 52 Englebrecht v Director of Public Prosecutions [2016] NSWCA 290 Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118 Gianoutsas v Glykis [2006] NSWCCA 137 Irons v Smallpiece (1819) 2 B & Ald 551 (106 ER 467) Nelson v Nelson (1995) 184 CLR 538 at 600 Silver v Silver [1958] 1 All ER 523
Texts Cited:	J D Heydon and M J Leeming, Jacobs’ Law of Trusts, Lexis Nexis Butterworths 7th ed, 2006 (Jacobs)
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Degampathi Jayasekra (Appellant) Regina (Respondent)
Representation:	Counsel: Solicitors: Thomas Henry Bray Lawyer (Appellant) C Hyland, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Respondent)
File Number(s):	2017/00167498
Publication restriction:	None