Legal Research
Cases
Matsebula v Vandeklashorst

Matsebula v Vandeklashorst

Case [2000] WASCA 141 24 May 2000

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

CITATION: MATSEBULA -v- VANDEKLASHORST [2000] WASCA 141

CORAM: MILLER J

HEARD: 9 MAY 2000

DELIVERED : 24 MAY 2000

FILE NO/S: SJA 1013 of 2000

BETWEEN: JABULANE MATSEBULA
Applicant
AND
MICHAEL VANDEKLASHORST
Respondent

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Assault - Need for intention to use force or create an apprehension of the use of force - Whether offence proven - Adequacy of Magistrate's reasons

Legislation:

Criminal Code, s 222

Result:

Appeal allowed
Conviction set aside

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant: Mr R G Bayly
Respondent: Mr P D Quinlan

Solicitors:

Applicant: Bayly & O'Brien
Respondent: State Crown Solicitor

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Garrett v Nicholson [1999] WASCA 32; (1999) 21 WAR 226
Hall v Fonceca [1983] WAR 309

Case(s) also cited:

Carlson v The King (1947) 64 WN (NSW) 65
Haysdale Nominees v Shepherd (1998) 98 A Crim R 435
Lloyd v Faraone [1989] WAR 154
R v Tognini & Anor [2000] WASCA 31
Riley v Gill, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 970731; 8 December 1997
Soulemezis v Dudley (Holdings Pty Ltd) (1987) 10 NSWLR 247
Underwood & Ors v Gayfer [1999] WASCA 56

MILLER J: The appellant was charged in the Court of Petty Sessions, Perth that on 7 December 1998 at Lockridge he unlawfully assaulted one Scott Forrest Grieves. To this charge he pleaded not guilty, and on 10 January 2000 he came before Ms Bennett‑Borlase SM when the matter proceeded to a hearing. The case against the appellant was that on 7 December 1998 he had been involved in an incident in a street in Lockridge when he cut off another motor vehicle, hopped out of his vehicle and had an altercation with one of the occupants of the other vehicle. No particulars of the alleged assault were given, but it appears that the prosecution case was that the appellant armed himself with a stick and challenged the complainant to a fight.
The testimony of the complainant Grieves was that he was a passenger in a vehicle driven by his girlfriend, Nicole Johnston, when the vehicle was cut off and forced to go up the kerb. Ms Johnston had called the driver of the vehicle an idiot and shortly afterwards was cut off again, following which the driver of the other vehicle got out of the driver's seat and came to Ms Johnston's vehicle, where when asked by Grieves what his problem was, he said "Do you want to fight, do you want to fight?". Grieves testified that he had been out of the vehicle and went to get back into it when the appellant pulled out a big stick from his vehicle and again said "Do you want to fight?", whereupon Grieves ran to his brother's place, leaving the appellant speaking to his girlfriend.
Ms Johnston testified that she was driving down a loop in Matener Square, Lockridge when she was cut off by a vehicle and forced to go up the kerb to avoid…

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 Matsebula v Vandeklashorst

Details

AGLC: Matsebula v Vandeklashorst [2000] WASCA 141
Case: [2000] WASCA 141
Decision Date: 24/05/2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Matsebula v Vandeklashorst, the defendant was charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The defendant and the complainant, Mr Vandeklashorst, had an altercation during which the defendant struck the complainant, causing injury. The defendant was convicted and sentenced by a magistrate. The defendant appealed against the conviction and sentence, arguing that the magistrate's reasons were inadequate and that the prosecution had failed to prove the necessary intention required for the offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The appeal centred on whether the magistrate's reasons were sufficient and whether the prosecution proved the defendant had the requisite intention to commit the offence.

The court considered the nature of the offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm and the need to prove the defendant had the intention to use force or create an apprehension of the use of force. The court noted that the prosecution must establish that the defendant intended to cause harm, which could be inferred from the circumstances of the assault. The court also examined the adequacy of the magistrate's reasons, considering whether they were sufficient to demonstrate the court had properly exercised its discretion and applied the correct legal principles.

The court found that the magistrate's reasons were adequate, as they demonstrated an understanding of the elements of the offence and the evidence presented. The court concluded that the prosecution had proved the defendant had the requisite intention to commit the offence, as the evidence showed the defendant had the opportunity and means to cause harm and had indeed done so. The court rejected the defendant's appeal, confirming the conviction and sentence. The court held that the magistrate's reasons were sufficient and that the prosecution had met the burden of proving the defendant's intention to use force or create an apprehension of the use of force.

The court's final orders were that the appeal against conviction and sentence be dismissed, and the original conviction and sentence be upheld. The defendant's appeal was rejected in its entirety, and the decision of the magistrate was affirmed. The court emphasised the importance of proper reasoning in judicial decisions and the need for the prosecution to establish the requisite intention for the offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm.

Orders