Hall v Davis

[2020] ACTSC 300

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

Hall v Davis

Citation:

[2020] ACTSC 300

Hearing Date:

11 November 2020

DecisionDate:

11 November 2020

Before:

Elkaim J

Decision:

See [14]

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL FROM MAGISTRATES COURT – Appeal against finding of guilt – damage property over $1000 –– appeal allowed

Cases Cited:

Peverill v Crampton [2010] ACTSC 79

Parties:

Steven John Hall (Appellant)

Shona Rae Davis (Respondent)

Representation:

Counsel

M Jones (Appellant)

K McCann (Respondent)

Solicitors

Kamy Saeedi Law (Appellant)

ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Number:

CA 29 of 2020

Decision under appeal: 

Court:  ACT Magistrates Court

Before:  Magistrate Theakston

Date of Decision:          22 July 2020

Case Title:  Davis v Hall

Court File Number:       CC 254 of 2020

ELKAIM J:

1. One 22 July 2020 Magistrate Theakston found the appellant guilty of the offence of damaging property with a value in excess of $1000 contrary to s 403 of the Criminal Code 2002.

1. The appellant, by a notice of appeal also filed on 22 July 2020 says that the verdict was, in effect, unsafe and unsatisfactory.

1. The Crown, in its written submissions has correctly set out the manner in which an appeal of this nature should proceed. I will not repeat them other than to quote from the decision of Refshauge J in Peverill v Crampton [2010] ACTSC 79, from [24]:

24.Such an appeal is by way of rehearing.  On the authorities, the principles under which such appeals are heard seem to be as follows:

1.The appellate court must determine whether the decision of the Magistrates Court is wrong, because it has fallen into error of law, by making a finding of fact which is clearly wrong, or exercising a discretion on a wrong principle or in a way that is clearly wrong.

2.The hearing is conducted on the evidence before the Magistrates Court with any evidence that is properly admitted on the appeal.

3.The appellate court must conduct a real and independent review of the evidence at the trial and the learned Magistrate’s reasons, including weighing conflicting evidence and drawing inferences itself from primary facts found by the Magistrates Court.

4.The appellate court must, however, make due allowance for the advantage that the learned Magistrate has in having seen and heard the witnesses.

5.The appellate court is not restricted to making the decision which the Magistrates Court should have made but must have regard to the circumstances existing at the time of the appeal and make its own decision in the circumstances and decide the matter on the law as at the date of the appeal.

6.In general, the appellate court will not interfere with the decision of the Magistrate unless it has caused a miscarriage of justice.

7.The appellate court should determine the correct judgment for itself and only order a retrial if it cannot.

1. The evidence against the appellant was made up of the following:

(a)Three recordings of CCTV footage.

(b)The concessions by the appellant that he is the person seen…