Huggard v Murray - [2016] ACTSC 246

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	Huggard v Murray
Citation:	[2016] ACTSC 246
Hearing Date:	24 August 2016
DecisionDate:	26 August 2016
Before:	Elkaim J
Decision:	The convictions are set aside. The respondent is to pay the appellant’s costs before the Chief Magistrate. The costs of the appeal are reserved pending the outcome of the Court of Appeal in Peden v Boxx [No 2].
Catchwords:	APPEAL – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Appeal from Magistrates Court – Appeal against conviction – s 138 of the Evidence Act 2011 (ACT) – s 23V of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) – whether evidence was incorrectly admitted
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act1914 (Cth), ss 23V, 24 Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), ss 309, 321 Evidence Act 2011 (ACT), ss 90, 138 Road Transport (Safety & Traffic Management) Act 1999 (ACT), s 7(1)
Cases Cited:	Connelly v Allan [2011] ACTSC 170 R v FE [2013] NSWSC 1692 R v JF [2009] ACTSC 104 R v Sarlija(No 1) [2015] ACTSC 290 Slipper v Turner [2015] ACTSC 27
Parties:	Roy Huggard (Appellant) Andrew Murray (Respondent)
Representation:	Counsel Mr K McDonald (Appellant) Mr M Reardon (Respondent)
Solicitors Canberra Criminal Lawyers (Appellant) ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent)
File Number:	SCA 38 of 2016
Decision under appeal:	Court/Tribunal: ACT Magistrates Court Before: Chief Magistrate Walker Date of Decision: 29 February 2016 Case Title: Murray v Huggard Court File Number: CC 9557 of 2014

ELKAIM J:

This is an appeal from a decision of the Chief Magistrate given on 29 February 2016. By this decision the appellant was convicted of a number of offences arising from a ‘road rage’ incident on 30 July 2014 on the Barton Highway, near Hall.

The appellant was sentenced on 21 April 2016. The offences and respective sentences are as follows:

CC 15/3626 – For the offence of robbery contrary to s 309 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), the appellant was sentenced to 12 months imprisonment fully suspended upon entering into a Good Behaviour Order for a period of 18 months.
CC 14/9557 – For the offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm contrary to s 24 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), the appellant was sentenced to 12 months imprisonment fully suspended upon entering into a Good Behaviour Order for a period of 18 months with 200 hours of community service.
CC 14/9558 – For the offence of furious driving contrary to s 7(1) of the Road Transport (Safety & Traffic Management) Act 1999 (ACT), the appellant was sentenced to 4 months fully suspended upon entering into a Good Behaviour Order for a period of 18 months. The appellant’s licence was disqualified for a period of 6 months.
CC 14/9559 – For the offence of minor theft contrary to s 321 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), the appellant was sentenced to a 6 month Good Behaviour Order.
CC 14/9560 – For the offence of failing to give particulars following a crash contrary to r 287(1) of…

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 Huggard v Murray

Details

AGLC: Huggard v Murray [2016] ACTSC 246
Case: [2016] ACTSC 246
Decision Date: 26 August 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Huggard v Murray, the appellant appealed against his convictions in the Magistrates Court of the Australian Capital Territory, which were related to drug trafficking offences under the Commonwealth Crimes Act 1914. The appellant contended that evidence which was admitted during the trial was inadmissible and prejudicial, affecting the fairness of the proceedings. The appeal raised questions about the application of s 138 of the Evidence Act 2011 (ACT) and s 23V of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), specifically concerning the admissibility of evidence.

The legal issues before the court were whether the trial magistrate had erred in admitting certain evidence, which the appellant argued was improperly obtained or irrelevant. The appellant contended that the evidence should not have been admitted as it did not meet the criteria for relevance and reliability as stipulated by the relevant legislative provisions. Additionally, the appellant argued that the admission of this evidence had a significant impact on the outcome of the trial, leading to an unfair trial.

The court found that the magistrate had indeed erred in admitting certain evidence which was not relevant or reliable under the applicable laws. The court held that the admission of this evidence was a significant procedural error, which affected the fairness of the trial. Consequently, the court set aside the appellant's convictions and ordered that the respondent pay the appellant's costs before the Chief Magistrate. The costs of the appeal were reserved pending the outcome of the Court of Appeal in Peden v Boxx [No 2].

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The convictions are set aside.

2. The respondent is to pay the appellant’s costs before the Chief Magistrate.

3. The costs of the appeal are reserved pending the outcome of the Court of Appeal in Peden v Boxx [No 2].

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.