SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: | Donnelly v Lester |
Citation: | [2024] ACTSC 393 |
Hearing Dates: | 16 May 2024; 12 August 2024 |
Decision Date: | 11 December 2024 |
Before: | Taylor J |
Decision: | (1) The appeal is allowed. (2) The finding of guilty in relation to the offence of obstruct a public official (CC2022/6371) is set aside. (3) The finding of guilt in relation to the offence of resist a public official (CC2023/2342) is set aside. (4) A finding of not guilty is entered in relation to the offence of obstruct a public official (CC2022/6371). (5) A finding of not guilty is entered in relation to the offence of resist a public official (CC2023/2342). |
Catchwords: | APPEAL – Appeal from Magistrates Court – Appeal against conviction – whether the verdict was unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence – whether the Magistrate erred regarding lawfulness of the arrest of a second person – whether the Magistrate erred in finding the appellant to have been lawfully arrested – resist public official – obstruct public official –police conduct – breach of the peace – appeal upheld – findings of guilt set aside |
Legislation Cited: | Australian Capital Territory National Land (Unleased) Ordinance 2022 (Cth), ss 68(1), 69 Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), s 361(1) Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT), div 3.10.2, 207, 208, 214 |
Cases Cited: | Alexander v Bakes [2023] ACTCA 49; 21 ACTLR 27 Alfred (a pseudonym) v Eiffert [2023] ACTSC 403 Coleman v Power [2004] HCA 39; 220 CLR 1 Dicksonv Irwin [2018] ACTSC 315 Fletcher v Harris [2005] ACTSC 27 Forbutt v Blake [1981] 51 FLR 465; 2 A Crim R 28 Fox v Percy [2003] HCA 22; 214 CLR 118 Inglis v Adamson [2024] ACTSC 4 Lee v Lee [2019] HCA 28; 266 CLR 129 M v The Queen [1994] HCA 63; 181 CLR 487 Robinson Helicopter Company Inc v McDermott [2016] HCA 22; 331 ALR 550 R v Howell [1982] 1 QBR 416 SBT v Wright [2021] ACTSC 322; 17 ACTLR 137 |
Parties: | Cheree Donnelly (Appellant) Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent) |
Representation: | Counsel K Ginges ( Appellant) L Fomiatti ( Respondent) |
| Solicitors Hugo Law Group ( Appellant) Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent) | |
File Number: | SCA 34 of 2023 |
Decision Under Appeal: | Court/Tribunal: ACT Magistrates Court Before: Magistrate Campbell Date of Decision: 11 May 2023 Case Title: The Police v Cheree Donnelly Court File Numbers: CAN 6371/2022 CAN 2342/2023 |
TAYLOR J:
Introduction
1․After a hearing on 10 May 2023, the appellant, Ms Cheree Donnelly, was found guilty in the ACT Magistrates Court on 11 May 2023 of the following charges:
(a)CC2023/2342 – resist a public official, contrary to s 361(1) of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) (the Criminal Code).
(b)CC2022/6371 – obstruct a public official, contrary to s 361(1) of the Criminal Code.
2․The Magistrate recorded…
Continue reading Donnelly v Lester
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Donnelly v Lester [2024] ACTSC 393
- Case
- [2024] ACTSC 393
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues in this appeal revolved around the lawfulness of the appellant’s arrest, whether the Magistrate correctly applied the law, and the sufficiency of the evidence to support the findings of guilt. Specifically, the appellant questioned the legal basis for the arrest of a second person and whether he himself was lawfully arrested. Additionally, the appellant argued that the Magistrate erred in concluding that he obstructed and resisted a public official, asserting that the evidence did not substantiate these claims.
The Court, in considering the appeal, examined the evidence and the legal principles applicable to the lawfulness of arrests and the elements of the offences charged. The Court found that the Magistrate had erred in several respects. Firstly, the Court held that the evidence did not sufficiently support the conclusion that the appellant obstructed a public official, nor did it substantiate the charge of resisting a public official. The Court also found that the Magistrate’s assessment of the lawfulness of the appellant’s arrest was flawed, leading to the conclusion that the appellant’s arrest was not lawful. Consequently, the Court determined that the appeal should be upheld, and the findings of guilt were set aside.
The Court ordered the appeal to be allowed, with the findings of guilt in relation to both charges set aside. The Court entered findings of not guilty in relation to the offences of obstructing a public official and resisting a public official, aligning with the determination that the evidence was insufficient to support the convictions. This decision resulted in the appellant being acquitted of both charges.
Orders
Orders of the court
(1) The appeal is allowed.
(2) The finding of guilty in relation to the offence of obstruct a public official (CC2022/6371) is set aside.
(3) The finding of guilt in relation to the offence of resist a public official (CC2023/2342) is set aside.
(4) A finding of not guilty is entered in relation to the offence of obstruct a public official (CC2022/6371).
(5) A finding of not guilty is entered in relation to the offence of resist a public official (CC2023/2342).
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.