Lauren Stone v Trinity Cook - [2021] ACTMC 5

MAGISTRATES COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	Lauren Stone v Trinity Cook
Citation:	[2021] ACTMC 5
Hearing Date(s):	2 March 2021
DecisionDate:	22 April 2021
Before:	Chief Magistrate Walker
Decision:	1. The charge of menacing driving is not proved and is dismissed. 2. The charge of damage property is not proved and is dismissed. 3. The charge of common assault is proved.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – Driving Offences – Property Damage Offences – menacing driving – intention to menace – value of property damaged
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act1900 (ACT) Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Act 1999 (ACT)
Cases Cited:	Grajewski v DPP(NSW) [2019] HCA 8; (2019) 264 CLR 470 Hanel v Shoemark [2011] ACTCA 16 Morphitis v Salmon [1990] Crim LR 48 R v Bailiff [2002] ACTSC 79 R v Whitely (1991) 93 Cr App R 25
Texts Cited:	Macquarie Dictionary (8^th edition, 2020)
Parties:	Lauren Ellen Stone (Informant) Trinity Cook (Defendant)
Representation:	Solicitors B Atkinson of Director of Public Prosecution (ACT) (Crown) S McLaughlin of Legal Aid ACT (Defendant)
File Numbers:	CC 12756 of 2019 CC 12758 of 2019 CC 8235 of 2020

CHIEF MAGISTRATE WALKER:

Background

The defendant, Mr Trinity Cook, is charged with one count of driving with intent to menace contrary to s8(1) of the Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Act 1999 (ACT), one count of damaging property not exceeding $5 000 contrary to s116(3) of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) and one count of common assault contrary to s26 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) on 28 November 2019. Mr Cook pleaded not guilty to these charges and the matter proceeded to hearing before me on 2 March 2021.

In assessing the evidence, I remind myself of the basic principles applicable to a criminal prosecution. The prosecution bears the burden of proving each and every element of the offences charged beyond reasonable doubt. The defendant has no obligation to prove his innocence; if he raises an explanation consistent with his innocence, he is not required to prove it; it is for the prosecution to disprove it or demonstrate its irrelevance.

In assessing the reliability or credibility of witnesses, I may take into account a range of factors including what they say, how they say it and their general impression upon me; in doing so, I may accept or reject some or all of their evidence. In assessing the evidence, I must be rational and dispassionate and may rely on common sense and experience. An inference may only be drawn if it is the only rational inference available. A defendant’s evidence is of no lesser weight simply by virtue of that person’s status as a defendant. If a defendant chooses not to give evidence in their own case, no adverse inference is to be drawn from this. If the prosecution fails to meet its high evidential burden, then the defendant must be acquitted of the charges.

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 Lauren Stone v Trinity Cook

Details

AGLC: Lauren Stone v Trinity Cook [2021] ACTMC 5
Case: [2021] ACTMC 5
Decision Date: 22 April 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Trinity Cook appealed against her conviction and sentence for common assault and two other charges, one of menacing driving and one of damaging property, which were dismissed. The appellant was charged after an altercation with Lauren Stone, who was allegedly assaulted by the appellant and who subsequently reported the incident to police. The appellant was later charged with common assault, damaging property and menacing driving. The appellant pleaded not guilty to all charges. The charges were heard by a magistrate who found the appellant guilty of common assault, but dismissed the charges of damaging property and menacing driving. The appellant appealed the conviction for common assault, but not the dismissal of the other two charges.

The appeal concerned the sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction for common assault. The court considered whether the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant intended to cause the complainant to apprehend immediate and unlawful personal violence. The court also considered whether the prosecution proved that the appellant caused damage to property. The court accepted that the appellant and the complainant had a prior relationship, which gave rise to a real possibility that the appellant intended to cause the complainant to apprehend immediate and unlawful personal violence. The court found that the complainant did apprehend immediate and unlawful personal violence and that the appellant intended her to do so. The court found that the prosecution had proved the charge of common assault. The court also found that the prosecution had not proved that the appellant caused damage to property or that she intended to menace the complainant by driving in a manner that was dangerous to the public.

The appeal against conviction was dismissed. The conviction for common assault stood. The charges of damaging property and menacing driving were not proved and were dismissed. The case was remitted to the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria for resentencing on the charge of common assault.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The charge of menacing driving is not proved and is dismissed.

2. The charge of damage property is not proved and is dismissed.

3. The charge of common assault is proved.

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.