Reported Decision:
9 DCLR (NSW) 225
District Court
CITATION: Jolly, Sean Graham v R [2009] NSWDC 212
JUDGMENT DATE:
3 July 2009JURISDICTION: District Court of New South Wales JUDGMENT OF: Cogswell SC DCJ DECISION: Set aside the convictions for affray, hindering police and assaulting police. Dismiss the appeals insofar as they relate to using offensive language, resisting an officer in the execution of duty and assaulting an officer in the execution of duty. In respect of the matters where the appeals have been dismissed confirm the orders and penalties made by the magistrate. CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - conviction appeals - affray - offensive language - hindering officer in course of duty - resisting officer in course of duty - assaulting officer in course of duty - identification evidence - offender bitten by police dog - intoxication - purpose of offensive language offence - review of authorities on offensive language - meaning of in "execution of duty" LEGISLATION CITED: Summary Offences Act 1988 s 4A(2)
Crimes Act 1900 s 546C s 58 s 93C(1)
Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 s 20CASES CITED: Director of Public Prosecutions v Gribble (2004) 151 A Crim R 256
Police v Butler [2003] NSWLC 2
R v Connolly and Willis [1984] 1 NSWLR 373
Re K (1993) 46 FCR 336
R v Smith [1974] 2 NSWLR 568
R v Stutsel and Reid (1990) 20 NSWLR 661
R v Worcester and Smith [1951] VLR 317
The Queen v Reynhoudt (1962) 107 CLR 381PARTIES: Sean Graham Jolly
RFILE NUMBER(S): 2008/12/1937 COUNSEL: Mr Martin (appellant) SOLICITORS: Director of Public Prosecutions
JUDGMENT
1. Sean Jolly was convicted of a number of offences by Magistrate Hannam in the Local Court on 5 September 2008. He appeals to this Court from those convictions.
2. It is convenient to adopt the summary of her Honour about certain matters which are not in dispute which gave rise to the charges. Schiller Place, Emerton, is where Mr Jolly lived with his family. There was a large brawl occurring in that street in the early hours of the morning of 9 December 2007. There was a large number of people in the street. The police got there at about twenty-five past one in the morning. There were generally two groups opposed to each other situated on each side of the street. Before the police arrived there had been fighting between those two groups. During the fighting Mr Jolly’s fiancée had been injured. Her name is Rebecca Smith. She was lying on the roadway when the police first arrived. When the police arrived they made attempts to control the situation that they were confronted with and to attend to Ms Smith.
3. Arising from the events which occurred after the police arrived Mr Jolly was arrested by the police and charged with a number of offences. Those are the offences of which he was convicted by Magistrate Hannam and which are the subject of this appeal. The offences were these: (1)…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Jolly, Sean Graham v The Queen and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2009] NSWDC 212
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court had to determine whether the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions for using offensive language, resisting an officer in the execution of duty, assaulting an officer in the execution of duty, affray, and hindering a police officer in the execution of duty. The court also had to decide whether the magistrate had erred in law by failing to properly consider the intoxication of the appellant and by misapplying the legal principles in relation to the offences.
The court found that the evidence was not sufficient to support the convictions for using offensive language, resisting an officer in the execution of duty, and assaulting an officer in the execution of duty. The court held that the magistrate had failed to properly consider the intoxication of the appellant and had misapplied the legal principles in relation to the offences. The court set aside the convictions for affray, hindering police, and assaulting police. However, the court dismissed the appeals insofar as they related to using offensive language, resisting an officer in the execution of duty, and assaulting an officer in the execution of duty. The court confirmed the orders and penalties made by the magistrate in respect of the matters where the appeals had been dismissed.
In conclusion, the court set aside the convictions for affray, hindering police, and assaulting police. The court dismissed the appeals insofar as they related to using offensive language, resisting an officer in the execution of duty, and assaulting an officer in the execution of duty. The court confirmed the orders and penalties made by the magistrate in respect of the matters where the appeals had been dismissed.
Orders
Orders of the court
Set aside the convictions for affray, hindering police and assaulting police. Dismiss the appeals insofar as they relate to using offensive language, resisting an officer in the execution of duty and assaulting an officer in the execution of duty. In respect of the matters where the appeals have been dismissed confirm the orders and penalties made by the magistrate.
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.