JA v Goldsmith - [2004] ACTSC 79

JA v JUDY LEA GOLDSMITH [2004] ACTSC 79 (2 September 2004)

APPEAL – conviction for offence of intentionally causing grievous bodily harm – whether evidence sufficient to prove requisite intent – consideration of alternate charges – no question of principle.

Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), ss 31, 42, 33(1), 33(3)
Magistrates Court Act1930 (ACT), s 214(2)
Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), ss 21, 24

R v Beech (1912) 7 Cr App R 197
R v Curley (1909) 2 Cr App R 109
Zecevic v Director of Public Prosecutions (VIC) (1987) 162 CLR 645
Uranerz (Australia) Pty Ltd v Hale (1980) 30 ALR 193
Devries v Australian National Railways Commission (1993) 177 CLR 472
M v R (1994) 126 ALR 325

Brayshaw v Liosatos [2001] ACTSC 2 (19 January 2001)

APPEAL FROM THE MAGISTRATES COURT

No. SCA 15 of 2004

Judge: Crispin J
Supreme Court of the ACT
Date: 2 September 2004

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE     )
  )          No. SCA 15 of 2004
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY           )

APPEAL FROM THE MAGISTRATES COURT

BETWEEN:JA
Applicant

AND:JUDY LEA GOLDSMITH
Respondent

ORDER

Judge:  Crispin J
Date:  2 September 2004
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

the appeal be allowed;
the conviction and sentence be set aside.

THE COURT FINDS THAT:

the offence that the appellant, on 4 January 2003 did assault Troy Justin Anderson and thereby occasioned to him actual bodily harm is proven.

This is an appeal against the decision of Magistrate Burns convicting the appellant of one count of intentionally inflicting grievous bodily harm.

This charge and a number of alternative charges arose out of an incident that occurred on 4 January 2003 when the appellant, who was then 16 years old, attended the ‘Summernats’ in Canberra. He arrived at about lunch time and between about 4.00 pm and 9.00 pm consumed about eight alcoholic drinks including beer and spirits. He obviously became significantly intoxicated and subsequently described his own condition as having been “fairly drunk; not blind drunk but getting there”. At some stage during the course of the evening he had lost his shirt and at about 9.00 pm he decided to leave the venue and go to a nearby car to get a jumper. He and his friend, Timothy Bogdani, left together but quickly encountered a group of young adults, including the complainant.

As the learned Magistrate observed, it is difficult to know precisely what then occurred. Most, if not all, of the witnesses had been affected to some degree by the consumption of alcohol and their recollections differed in significant respects. It is clear that the appellant asked various members of the group whether they were Ford or Holden supporters and that he shook hands with those who identified themselves as Holden supporters but behaved like “a bit of a smart arse”, as he evocatively explained, towards the Ford supporters. This behaviour apparently irritated the complainant who pushed the appellant and said “Shut up, unless you want a head butt”. At this point another member…

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 JA v Goldsmith

Details

AGLC: JA v Goldsmith [2004] ACTSC 79
Case: [2004] ACTSC 79
Decision Date: 2 September 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, JA, appealed against his conviction for intentionally causing grievous bodily harm to a child. The case was heard in the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria. JA argued that the evidence presented was insufficient to prove the requisite intent for the offence, and suggested that a lesser charge might be more appropriate. The Crown contended that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.

The legal issues before the court were whether the evidence was sufficient to prove that JA had the requisite intent to commit the offence, and if not, whether an alternative charge should be considered. The court needed to determine if the jury could have reasonably concluded that JA intentionally caused grievous bodily harm, and if not, whether a lesser charge such as reckless grievous bodily harm was more appropriate.

The court found that the evidence did not support a finding of intent to cause grievous bodily harm. The court considered the possibility of an alternative charge but concluded that the evidence did not support such a charge either. The court determined that there was insufficient evidence to support any conviction and set aside the conviction and sentence. The appeal was allowed, and the conviction and sentence were set aside.

Orders

Orders of the court

the appeal be allowed;

the conviction and sentence be set aside.

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.