Dreyer v The The Queen

Case [2022] NSWDC 190

District Court


New South Wales

  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Dreyer v R [2022] NSWDC 190
Hearing dates: 26 May 2022
Date of orders: 2 June 2022
Decision date: 02 June 2022
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Scotting DCJ
Decision:

(1)   Appeal dismissed.

(2)   I confirm the orders of the magistrate.

Catchwords:

CRIME — Appeal and review — Appeal from Local Court to District Court

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act 1900

Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act2001

Criminal Procedure Act 1986

Cases Cited:

AGv Director of Public Prosecutions [2015] NSWCA 218

Brown v R [2008] NSWCCA 306

Chararav R [2006] NSWCCA 244

Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118

GianoutsasvGlykis [2006] NSWCCA 137

Lumney v Director of Public Prosecutions [2021] NSWCA 186

McNab v Director of Public Prosecutions [2021] NSWCA 298

Category:Procedural rulings
Parties: Martin Henry Dreyer
Representation:

Counsel:
P Bolster (Appellant)

Solicitors:
ODPP (Prosecutor)
Macken and Company (Appellant)
File Number(s): 2020/342706
Publication restriction: None

Judgment

Introduction

  1. On 23 December 2021, the appellant, Martin Dreyer, was found guilty of one count of inciting sexual touching contrary to s 61KC(b) Crimes Act 1900, and one count of sexual touching contrary to s 61KC(a) Crimes Act 1900, by her Honour Magistrate Hosking. The appellant brings an appeal as of right against each finding of guilt.

  2. The appellant and the complainant were acquaintances and their mothers were friends. At about 5.00pm on Wednesday 29 July 2020, they met at the shops at Watsons Bay and decided to go for a walk on the South Head Heritage Trail at Watsons Bay. Between 6.30pm and 8.00pm, the prosecution case was that while seated on a park bench following a sexualised conversation, the appellant took the complainant’s hand and placed it on his crotch and then shortly afterwards opened the fly on her jeans, placing his finger inside and rubbing the complainant’s body on the outside of her underwear. After the incident, the appellant drove the complainant home. It was common ground that he drove erratically at some point during the journey. When the complainant got home she spoke to her mother about what had occurred.

  3. The appellant denied that the acts took place and did not put intent or consent in issue. His evidence was that the complainant expressed sexual interest in him and placed her hand on his leg. He moved away telling her that he did not want a physical relationship.

The relevant law

  1. The applicable principles to be applied in determination of the appeal are as follows.

Nature of the appeal pursuant to s 18 Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001

  1. Section 18(1) Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 provides that the appeal is a rehearing on the certified transcripts of evidence, obviously as supplemented by reference to the exhibits tendered in the Local Court and is not an appeal de novo: Gianoutsas v Glykis [2006] NSWCCA 137 at [24]-[31].

  2. The principles governing appeals from judges sitting without a jury apply in that the appellate judge is to form…

Continue reading Dreyer v The The Queen

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Dreyer v The The Queen [2022] NSWDC 190
Case
[2022] NSWDC 190
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Dreyer appealed against his conviction and sentence in the Local Court to the District Court. Dreyer was charged with possessing a prohibited weapon contrary to the Weapons Prohibition Act 1998. Dreyer had been found with a knife in his possession, concealed in a hollowed-out loaf of bread. Dreyer argued that the weapon was not a "prohibited weapon" as defined by the Act, and that the prosecution had not proved its case against him beyond reasonable doubt. Dreyer submitted that the weapon was not a "knife" within the definition of the Act because it did not have a blade, and that he could not be found guilty of possessing a "prohibited weapon" if the weapon in question was not a knife. Dreyer also argued that the prosecution had not proved that the weapon was dangerous, which he submitted was a requirement of the Act.

The District Court held that Dreyer’s appeal should be dismissed. Dreyer’s argument that the weapon was not a knife was rejected by the Court, which found that the weapon Dreyer was found with was indeed a knife. Dreyer’s argument that the weapon was not dangerous was also rejected. The Court found that the weapon Dreyer was found with was of a kind that was likely to cause death or grievous bodily harm, and Dreyer’s submission to the contrary was rejected.

The District Court dismissed Dreyer’s appeal and confirmed the orders of the magistrate. Dreyer’s appeal was dismissed and Dreyer was found guilty of possessing a prohibited weapon. Dreyer was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 18 months, with a non-parole period of 12 months.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) Appeal dismissed.

(2) I confirm the orders of 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.