Karpany v Police

[2013] SASC 124

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA

(Magistrates Appeals: Criminal)

KARPANY v POLICE

[2013] SASC 124

Judgment of The Honourable Chief Justice Kourakis

9 August 2013

CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - OFFENCES AGAINST PEACE AND PUBLIC ORDER - ASSAULTING, RESISTING, HINDERING, OR OBSTRUCTING POLICE OFFICER - GENERALLY

MAGISTRATES - APPEAL AND REVIEW - SOUTH AUSTRALIA - APPEAL TO SUPREME COURT - GROUNDS - GENERALLY

The appellant was found guilty of hindering police. The appeal is against the Magistrate’s finding of guilt. The appellant argued, firstly, that he was not afforded an adequate opportunity to defend the charge and, secondly, that the Magistrate erred in finding that he had intended, or was aware, that his actions would hinder police.

Held:

(1) The appellant failed to establish that a miscarriage of justice had arisen with respect to the procedural fairness of the trial (at [10], [15] and [16]).

(2) The Magistrate did not err in finding that the appellant intended, or knew, that his conduct would hinder police (at [24]).

(3) Appeal dismissed (at [26]).

Summary Offences Act 1953 (SA) s 6(2), referred to.
Leonard v Morris (1975) 10 SASR 528, discussed.
Grey v R (2001) 184 ALR 593; The Queen v Reynhoudt [1962] HCA 23; (1962) 107 CLR 381, considered.

KARPANY v POLICE
[2013] SASC 124

Magistrates Appeal:  Criminal

1. KOURAKIS CJ:    After a trial in the Magistrates Court, in which he appeared without counsel, the appellant, Mr Karpany, was found guilty of an offence of hindering a police officer at Port Germein on 30 November 2011.  The Magistrate placed the appellant on a bond without recording a conviction.  Mr Karpany appeals against the finding of guilt.

2. The Notice of Appeal, which was not drawn by a solicitor, raised many grounds of appeal, including a constitutional challenge to the legislative authority of the State to make laws binding an indigenous Australians.  That ground, and many of the others, were abandoned by counsel, Mr Koziol, who appeared for Mr Karpany on the appeal.  Mr Koziol argued only two grounds.  The first was that Mr Karpany was not afforded an adequate opportunity to defend the charge.  The second was that the Magistrate erred in finding that Mr Karpany had intended, or was aware, that his actions would hinder Brevet Sergeant Garden (“Garden “) in the execution of his duty, namely the arrest of Mr Karpany’s son.  For the reasons which follow, I hold that those grounds are not established and dismiss the appeal.

   The Trial

3. The Magistrate summarised the prosecution evidence in the following way:[1]

   The prosecution called three witnesses, Brevet Sergeant Garden and Constables Osborne and Burgess.  In response to a complaint about a disturbance Sgt Garden attended the Port Germein Hotel, from which he was directed to the bowling club and then to a private residence, where he located Owen William Karpany (now known to be the defendant’s son) and arrested him, as he suspected him to be the person about whom reports of disorderly conduct had been received.…