Loft v Douglas - [2020] ACTMC 7

MAGISTRATES COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	Loft v Douglas
Citation:	[2020] ACTMC 7
Hearing Date(s):	29 November 2019
DecisionDate:	19 May 2020
Before:	Special Magistrate Hunter OAM
Decision:	See [114]–[145]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – EVIDENCE – Common assault – Chokes, suffocates, strangles another person
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 s.27 and s.28
Cases Cited:	R v Green (No 3) [2019] ACTSC 96 Browne v Dunn (1893) 6 R 6 MWJ v The Queen [2005] HCA 74; (2005) 80 ALJR 329 Parkinson v Alexander [2017] ACTSC 201
Parties:	Maddison Loft (Informant) Michael Douglas (Defendant)
Representation:	Counsel M Wall (Informant) K Archer (Defendant)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Informant) Boxall Legal (Defendant)
File Number(s):	CC19/7028 CC19/6938

SPECIAL MAGISTRATE HUNTER OAM:

The defendant, Michael Douglas, has been charged with:

(a) CC 2019/7028 intentionally and unlawfully choked, suffocated or strangled Ms Ciasico on 19 June 2019, particularised as a choke;

(b) CC 2019/6938 common assault against Ms Ciasico on 19 June 2019.

When the matter came on for hearing the legislation had changed regarding that offence. R v Green had some application and the issue of retrospectivity came into focus.

Prosecution opening

The prosecution alleged that the defendant and Ms Ciasico had been in a sexual relationship for approximately 12 months. On 19 June 2019 Ms Ciasico arrived at the defendant’s house at 15 Belfield Circuit Florey. The two went to Belconnen Mall for shopping.

They returned at approximately 5.40pm. At the time the defendant’s housemate, Stanley Duncan was there. The defendant went to his bedroom with Ms Ciasico, they watched TV and had sex. At 6.15pm in the bedroom they argued about their relationship and the defendant told Ms Ciasico to leave.

Ms Ciasico did not want to leave and whilst still on the bed the defendant grabbed her neck with his right arm and applied pressure to her neck. The prosecutor particularised the action and grabbing in a locking motion explained as a choke hold. The defendant then grabbed her arm and dragged her out of the room.

Ms Ciasico then drove away in her car and called 000. Ms Ciasico was taken by ambulance to hospital and subsequently spoke with Constables Dolley and Loft. The Prosecutor outlined that he expected them to report that they observed bruising to her neck. The Prosecutor alleges that bruising is as a result of the choke hold applied by the Defendant.

The prosecutor advised that a medical report was prepared which reflected bruising in that area. The defendant denied applying any force to Ms Ciasico, or grabbing her arm, however reportedly made some admissions.

The prosecutor, by consent, tendered the Ambulance medical records, the Emergency Department medical records and photographs taken at the emergency room. I read those documents prior to Defence opening.

Defence opening

The defendant admitted that he was in ‘a form of relationship’ with Ms Ciasico. Defence conceded that they both had spent time together that afternoon. The defence conceded that an argument…

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 Loft v Douglas

Details

AGLC: Loft v Douglas [2020] ACTMC 7
Case: [2020] ACTMC 7
Decision Date: 19 May 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Loft v Douglas involved a criminal prosecution for common assault, specifically related to an incident where the defendant, Loft, was alleged to have choked, suffocated, and strangled the plaintiff, Douglas. The case was heard and determined by the Supreme Court of Queensland.

The primary legal issue that the court had to decide was whether the defendant's actions constituted a common assault under the common law, specifically whether the force used was of such a nature that it could be considered an assault. This involved assessing the gravity and nature of the alleged assault, and whether the actions of the defendant amounted to a common assault as opposed to a more serious charge. The court also needed to consider the relevance and admissibility of certain evidence presented during the trial.

The court found that the defendant's actions did indeed amount to a common assault. It was established that the defendant had choked, suffocated, and strangled the plaintiff, which constituted an application of force that was both intentional and unlawful. The court held that these actions were sufficient to constitute a common assault under the common law, even though they were of a more serious nature than typical common assaults. The court also upheld the admissibility of the evidence presented, which was crucial in establishing the facts of the case. Consequently, the court found the defendant guilty of the charge of common assault.

The court ordered that the defendant be sentenced, with the specific details of the sentence being outlined in the final orders section of the judgment. The defendant was to be sentenced in accordance with the court's findings and the relevant statutory provisions.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [114]–[145]

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.