Legal Research
Cases
Hayman v Cartwright

Hayman v Cartwright

Case [2018] WASCA 116 18 July 2018

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION     :   SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
TITLE OF COURT :   THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)
CITATION:   HAYMAN -v- CARTWRIGHT [2018] WASCA 116
CORAM:   BUSS P
MAZZA JA
BEECH JA

HEARD:   14 MARCH 2018
DELIVERED          :   18 JULY 2018
FILE NO/S:   CACR 148 of 2017
BETWEEN:   DION PETER HAYMAN
Appellant
AND
JAMES DARREN CARTWRIGHT
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :   MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram:   MAGISTRATE RANDAZZO
File Number             :   PE 70541 of 2016

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Assault - Whether assault by an application of force involves an element of intention

Legislation:

Criminal Code (WA), s 222

Result:

Appeal upheld
Matter remitted to the Magistrates Court for rehearing

Category: A

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant	:	Mr G T W Tannin SC & Mr E Fearis
Respondent	:	No appearance
Amicus Curiae	:	Ms K Farley SC

Solicitors:

Appellant	:	State Solicitor for Western Australia
Respondent	:	In person
Amicus Curiae	:	Legal Aid of Western Australia

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

Bolitho v The State of Western Australia [2007] WASCA 102; (2007) 34 WAR 215
Boughey v The Queen [1986] HCA 29; (1986) 161 CLR 10
Braysich v The Queen [2011] HCA 14; (2011) 243 CLR 434
Brennan v The King [1936] HCA 24; (1936) 55 CLR 253
BRK v The Queen [2001] WASCA 161
City of Kwinana v Lamont [2014] WASCA 112
Collard v The State of Western Australia [2016] WASCA 135; (2016) 51 WAR 1
Epic Energy (Pilbara Pipeline) Pty Ltd v Commissioner of State Revenue [2011] WASCA 228; (2011) 43 WAR 186
Fernandez v The State of Western Australia [2017] WASCA 223
Fingleton v The Queen [2005] HCA 34; (2005) 227 CLR 166
Fogden v Wade [1945] NZLR 724
Hall v Fonceca [1983] WAR 309
Hawke v The State of Western Australia [2017] WASCA 40
Johnson v Ayling [2013] WASC 312
Kaporonovski v The Queen [1973] HCA 35; (1973) 133 CLR 209
Kelly v The Queen [2004] HCA 12; (2004) 218 CLR 216
L v The State of Western Australia [2016] WASCA 101; (2016) 49 WAR 545
Marchesano v The State of Western Australia [2017] WASCA 177
Matsebula v Vandeklashorst [2000] WASCA 141
Mellifont v Attorney‑General (Qld) [1991] HCA 53; (1991) 173 CLR 289
Murphy v Spencer [2013] WASC 256; (2013) 232 A Crim R 74
Murray v The Queen [2002] HCA 26; (2002) 211 CLR 193
Nominal Defendant v GLG Australia Pty Ltd [2006] HCA 11; (2006) 228 CLR 529
Pickering v The Queen [2017] HCA 17; (2017) 91 ALJR 590
Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority [1998] HCA 28; (1998) 194 CLR 355
R v Barlow [1997] HCA 19; (1997) 188 CLR 1
R v Falconer [1990] HCA 49; (1990) 171 CLR 30
R v LK [2010] HCA 17; (2010) 241 CLR 177 [96] ‑ [97]
R v McIver (1928) 22 QJPR 173
Re Attorney‑General's Reference No 1 of 1977 [1979] WAR 45

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 Hayman v Cartwright

Details

AGLC: Hayman v Cartwright [2018] WASCA 116
Case: [2018] WASCA 116
Decision Date: 18 JULY 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Hayman v Cartwright, the parties involved were Hayman, the plaintiff, and Cartwright, the defendant. The dispute centred around an incident where the plaintiff alleged that the defendant committed an assault by applying force to him. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff sought to establish that the defendant's actions constituted an assault under common law, specifically focusing on whether such an offence requires an element of intention to apply force.

The central legal issue before the court was whether an assault by an application of force necessarily involves an element of intention on the part of the defendant. The plaintiff argued that intention was a requisite element, while the defendant contended that the mere application of force, irrespective of intent, could suffice to constitute an assault. The court was tasked with interpreting the relevant common law principles to determine the necessary components of an assault offence.

The court found that for an act to qualify as an assault, there must be an intentional or reckless application of force to another person. It was held that while the defendant's actions constituted an application of force, the absence of any evidence suggesting intent or recklessness meant that the defendant's actions did not meet the threshold for an assault. Consequently, the court ruled in favour of the defendant, finding that the plaintiff's claim for assault was not substantiated by the evidence presented.

Orders