CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL – Appeal against conviction – common assault – where arrest found to be unlawful under s 121 of the Casino Control Act 2006 (ACT) – where alternative source of power under s 218 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) existed to arrest by way of “citizen’s arrest” – whether power to arrest impliedly requires element of necessity – whether appellant acted in self-defence – whether findings of guilt otherwise unsafe or unsatisfactory
On 29 July 2016, Jennifer Follett, the appellant on this appeal, was involved in an incident at the Canberra Casino (Casino) after she sought to intervene between security officers employed by the Casino…
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 Follett v Mann
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Follett v Mann [2019] ACTSC 141
Case
[2019] ACTSC 141
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appellant, Follett, was convicted of common assault by the Magistrates Court of the Australian Capital Territory and appealed against the conviction. The conviction arose from an incident where the appellant assaulted a security guard, Mr Mann, while he was being arrested for an alleged breach of casino regulations. The arrest was conducted by Mr Mann, who was not a police officer but was employed by the casino, and was based on the Casino Control Act 2006 (ACT). The appellant argued that the arrest was unlawful because it was not conducted in accordance with the Act, and further contended that the conviction should be quashed as it was unsafe and unsatisfactory.
The legal issues that the court was required to address included whether the power to arrest impliedly required an element of necessity, whether the appellant acted in self-defence, and whether the findings of guilt were otherwise unsafe or unsatisfactory. The court examined the provisions of the Casino Control Act 2006 (ACT) and the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), and considered whether the arrest was lawful under either Act. The court also considered whether the appellant’s actions were justified as a reasonable response to the situation, and whether the conviction was so flawed as to warrant a new trial.
The court found that the arrest was unlawful under the Casino Control Act 2006 (ACT) because it was not conducted in accordance with the provisions of that Act. However, the court also found that the appellant had an alternative source of power to arrest under s 218 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) by way of “citizen’s arrest”. The court considered whether the power to arrest impliedly required an element of necessity and found that it did not. The court also found that the appellant had acted in self-defence, and that the findings of guilt were not otherwise unsafe or unsatisfactory. The appeal was dismissed.