Lawrence v Police - [2023] SASC 115

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Magistrates Appeal: Criminal)
LAWRENCE v POLICE
[2023] SASC 115
Judgment of the Honourable Justice Bampton
10 August 2023
MAGISTRATES - APPEAL AND REVIEW - SOUTH AUSTRALIA - APPEAL TO SUPREME COURT
CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - PROCEDURE - POWERS OF COURT ON APPEAL - POWER TO ORDER NEW TRIAL OR QUASH CONVICTION AND DIRECT ENTRY OF VERDICT OF ACQUITTAL - WHERE CONVICTION QUASHED AND VERDICT OF ACQUITTAL ENTERED
Appeal against conviction for assault – whether Magistrate erred in finding the evidence established the appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt – whether the Magistrate’s reasons were adequate.
Held: Appeal allowed – the evidence did not establish the appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt – verdict of acquittal entered.
Magistrates Court Act 1991 (SA) s 42; Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) ss 20(3), 170(1), referred to.
Liberato v The Queen (1985) 159 CLR 507; Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118; Devries v Australian National Railways Commission (1993) 177 CLR 472; R v Keyte (2000) 78 SASR 68; R v Schlaefer (1984) 37 SASR 207; Eade v The King (1924) 34 CLR 154; Chandler v Police [2016] SASC 42; R v Lavery (2013) 116 SASR 242; Douglass v The Queen (2012) 86 ALJR 1086, considered.

LAWRENCE v POLICE
[2023] SASC 115
Magistrates Appeal: Criminal

BAMPTON J: By Magistrates Court Information dated 26 July 2021, Roy David Lawrence was charged with aggravated serious criminal trespass in a place of residence[1] and assault.[2] The aggravated serious criminal trespass charge was withdrawn on 21 September 2022. Mr Lawrence pleaded not guilty to the assault charge against Jennifer Fatchen (“Ms Fatchen”) and the matter proceeded to trial in the Whyalla Magistrates Court on 12 January 2023.
[1] Contrary to s 170(1) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act1935 (SA).
[2] Contrary to s 20(3) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA).
The prosecution case as summarised by the Magistrate was:[3]
Now if I just summarise the opening of the prosecution. It was alleged that Ms Fatchen was at home on the morning of 13 June 2021 when [Mr Lawrence] arrived. That he let himself in, that words were spoken, that he punched her twice to the mouth. That he grabbed her around the back of the head with both hands and threw her into a metal storage rack, then she fell to the floor. That the side of her head impacted with the rack. That he picked her up by both hands by her head and threw her into a wooden front door, that she fell to the floor, he picked her up again and threw her towards her daughter’s dolls house. The back of her head hit the back of the dolls house and broke the dolls house. She suffered a split and swollen lip and a scratch to the back of the neck. [Mr Lawrence] left and police were called.
[3] Police v Lawrence, Roy David [2023]…

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 Lawrence v Police

Details

AGLC: Lawrence v Police [2023] SASC 115
Case: [2023] SASC 115
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Lawrence v Police, the defendant, Roy Lawrence, appealed against his conviction for assault. The case originated in the Magistrates Court, where Lawrence was found guilty of assaulting Ms Fatchen. Ms Fatchen testified that Lawrence visited her home on 13 June 2021, became agitated while searching for her brother, and subsequently punched her, threw her into a storage rack, and into a Barbie Dreamhouse, causing her injuries. The police were called, and a crime scene investigator documented Ms Fatchen's injuries. Lawrence maintained his innocence, claiming that Ms Fatchen attacked him. The legal issues before the court were whether the evidence was sufficient to establish the assault beyond reasonable doubt and if there were any errors in the Magistrate's assessment of the evidence.

The court found that Lawrence's evidence was confusing and open to multiple interpretations, particularly regarding the circumstances of the assault and the relationship between Lawrence and Ms Fatchen. The court concluded that the evidence did not conclusively prove Lawrence's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted that while there were inconsistencies in Lawrence's testimony, they did not necessarily undermine the credibility of Ms Fatchen's account. The court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and entered a verdict of acquittal. This decision highlights the importance of clear and consistent evidence in establishing guilt in criminal cases.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

I have carefully read the evidence and the reasons of the Magistrate and have had regard to the written and oral submissions. For reasons that follow, I allow the appeal.Ms Fatchen’s evidence Ms Fatchen gave evidence that she was assaulted on 13 June 2021 at Whyalla Norrie. She said she had known Roy Lawrence for about six years as a friend of her brother’s. She guessed she knew him quite well and said her interactions with him were “only really when he’s hung out with my brother”. She described that on 13 June 2021 she was at her home with her two children and three other children who had been there for her daughter’s birthday sleepover. Ms Fatchen said she came out of her room and heard the front door open. She found her four-year-old son had opened the door to Mr Lawrence who walked in. She said Mr Lawrence was screaming about and trying to find her brother. She explained that he was looking for her brother “to transfer a rego or something for a car”. Ms Fatchen’s brother was not at the house and does not live there. She said Mr Lawrence “started getting louder and louder, screaming at [her], and asking for where [her] brother was and then he was about half a metre away from [her] and he punched [her] in [the] mouth”. At the time he punched her, she was in the middle of the lounge. She said he punched her with a closed fist to her mouth. She could not recall which hand he used or exactly how many times he punched her. Ms Fatchen said Mr Lawrence then grabbed her by the head and threw her into a metal storage rack located by the front door. Having done this, she said he again picked her up by her head and threw her into her daughter’s Barbie Dreamhouse. She said the Barbie Dreamhouse was damaged and the back of her head was scratched behind her ear. She said her daughter, her daughter’s friends, and her son were standing in the hallway, her daughter started screaming, and Mr Lawrence ran out the door. She then locked the doors, closed the blinds, and rang her friend to discuss what she should do. The friend told her to call the police, which she did. The police attended and took photographs of her. Ms Fatchen was shown the photographs in exhibit P2 and asked to describe what is seen in photo number 2. She said, “The blood on my lips and the cut to my lip”. Ms Fatchen said photo number 3 also showed the cut on her lip and blood surrounding her lips which she said were caused by Mr Lawrence punching her directly in the mouth with his rings on. She explained that she sustained the scratch behind her ear seen in photo number 4 when she was thrown into the Barbie Dreamhouse. The crime scene investigator’s statement and photographs The crime scene investigator, Brevet Sergeant Anna Kot, deposed in her affidavit[5] that she attended Ms Fatchen’s home at about 10:55 am on 13 June 2021. She had a discussion with Ms Fatchen and conducted a forensic examination. She took photographs, noting Ms Fatchen had injuries on her lip and neck and red stains on her lips resembling blood. She deposed the skin was broken on parts of her lip, her upper lip appeared swollen, and there was a red line about six centimetres long on the left side of Ms Fatchen’s neck. Brevet Sergeant Kot recorded in exhibit P2 that photo number 3 depicted “Injuries on upper lip and dried blood on lower lip”.[5] Exhibit P1.Cross-examination of Ms Fatchen

Decision

Reasons for decision

Whilst it is not necessary to consider grounds 3 and 4, I indicate in relation to ground 3 that it would have been preferable for the Magistrate to address each of the elements of assault. However, I agree with the respondent that the evidence did not require consideration of lawful excuse. Mr Lawrence maintained he did not touch Ms Fatchen and did not give any evidence that he touched her when she “attacked me, charged constantly”, would not let him leave, and tried to blackmail him. In relation to ground 4, it would have been preferable for the Magistrate to refer to aspects of the evidence given by Mr Lawrence as supporting or consistent with Ms Fatchen’s evidence rather than saying it corroborated her account.Conclusion Having reviewed the evidence and borne in mind the Magistrate’s advantage in assessing the credibility and reliability of the witnesses, I am not satisfied the evidence was sufficient to establish beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Lawrence is guilty of assault. Mr Lawrence must be found not guilty. I allow the appeal. I set aside the conviction and sentence imposed in the Magistrates Court. I enter a verdict of acquittal in respect of count 2 on the Information dated 26 July 2021.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

The respondent submitted Ms Fatchen gave evidence that Mr Lawrence attended her home screaming about and trying to find her brother to transfer registration for the car. It was submitted this comprised evidence as to the reason why Mr Lawrence not only attended her home that morning but also why he was upset. It was argued that the evidence is relevant to a fact in issue, and that Mr Lawrence did not give direct evidence that Ms Fatchen invited him over, rather he asserted that she sent him messages which comprise exhibit D1, which she denied sending. It was contended that not only did Mr Lawrence give evidence that he had purchased a vehicle that was registered in Ms Fatchen’s brother’s name, but he also agreed that he attended the house to see her brother. When he was asked in cross-examination what he said to Ms Fatchen, he stated that he asked about her brother and “all that”. He agreed that he asked her about her brother and the car and was upset with her. He gave evidence that upon his attendance there were tense words about a motor vehicle. It was submitted this was entirely consistent with Ms Fatchen’s evidence on the topic and corroborates her account as to why he attended, became upset, and assaulted her.Consideration As Mr Lawrence’s complaints in grounds 1 and 2 overlap, I will consider them together. There can be no doubt Mr Lawrence’s evidence on certain topics was confusing and, on my assessment, open to various interpretations. In relation to how long he had known Ms Fatchen, his evidence could be as submitted by the prosecution. It could also be that he met Ms Fatchen through the father of her children and through Tinder, bearing in mind his assertion of a sexual relationship with her. Mr Lawrence agreed it was plausible he met her through her brother. The effect of his evidence may be that, having had a clandestine relationship of many years, Ms Fatchen’s brother formally introduced him to Ms Fatchen six years ago, noting his evidence:I mean I’m friends with her brother and her boyfriend, it’s pretty embarrassing that I’m having sex with her, you know what I mean. Mr Lawrence agreed that there was an argument or tense words about the car at Ms Fatchen’s home. He gave evidence that upon arrival he asked Ms Fatchen about her brother “and that” and checked his phone and found he did not have any money. This evidence suggests that, upon attendance at Ms Fatchen’s home, both the car and the money he owed Ms Fatchen were discussed. The discussion about the car “got nowhere”. He said Ms Fatchen thought he had cash, did not want him to leave, and blackmailed him. He gave evidence she said, “If you leave, I’m calling the cops”. Mr Lawrence said he did not touch Ms Fatchen and that she “made a scene” by attacking him and charging constantly. In response to the following question in cross-examination:And you’re asking about Tyson because he’s got this car that essentially you own because you’ve put all of your savings into this car, so it’s your car and you want the car back, is that right.Mr Lawrence said, “Probably so I can pay her, she’s got kids”. This answer suggests Mr Lawrence wanted the car and to pay back the debt he owed Ms Fatchen. He said he was “pissed off” he could not pay her. Mr Lawrence had said in examination-in-chief, the car “was a struggle to sell”. He also gave evidence he was about to go out of town “with some other chick … and they had money to go out of town and she didn’t believe me I was broke”. This, together with his evidence “she just thought I had cash”, suggests his account is that Ms Fatchen was of the belief he had money as he was going out of town, but it was the person he was going out of town with who had money, not him.