Michelle Fay KEANE v SA Police No. Scgrg-97-1011 Judgment No. 6358 Number of Pages 3 Criminal Law
Case
•
[1997] SASC 6358
•12 September 1997
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Michelle Fay KEANE v SA Police No. Scgrg-97-1011 Judgment No. 6358 Number of Pages 3 Criminal Law [1997] SASC 6358
[1997] SASC 6358
12 September 1997
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the Supreme Court of South Australia, Michelle Fay Keane appealed against her conviction for aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring Craig John Smith to breach a domestic violence restraining order, a charge brought under section 15(1) of the Domestic Violence Act 1994. The appellant had been found guilty in the Magistrates Court of aiding and abetting the breach of the restraining order made against her former domestic partner, Craig John Smith. The primary legal issue for the court was whether the appellant was exempt from the application of ordinary principles of accessorial liability under the Domestic Violence Act 1994. The court considered whether the Act created an exclusion from liability for aiding and abetting for victims of domestic violence, or whether the ordinary rules governing liability for aiding and abetting applied.
The court found that the appellant was not exempt from the ordinary principles of accessorial liability under the Domestic Violence Act 1994. The Domestic Violence Act was designed to protect victims of domestic violence from unwanted conduct causing apprehension or fear, rather than to protect them from their own willing participation in the offending conduct. The court held that the ordinary principles of accessorial liability applied because the Act was not passed for the protection of persons against their willing participation in the offending conduct. The appellant's actions resulted in the police attending and removing the offender, which the court found to be unjust and wasteful of curial and police resources. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, and the conviction of the appellant was upheld.
The final order was that the appeal against conviction was dismissed.
The court found that the appellant was not exempt from the ordinary principles of accessorial liability under the Domestic Violence Act 1994. The Domestic Violence Act was designed to protect victims of domestic violence from unwanted conduct causing apprehension or fear, rather than to protect them from their own willing participation in the offending conduct. The court held that the ordinary principles of accessorial liability applied because the Act was not passed for the protection of persons against their willing participation in the offending conduct. The appellant's actions resulted in the police attending and removing the offender, which the court found to be unjust and wasteful of curial and police resources. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, and the conviction of the appellant was upheld.
The final order was that the appeal against conviction was dismissed.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Criminal Law
Legal Concepts
-
Accessorial Liability
-
Breach of Restraint Order
-
Complicity
-
Aider and Abettor
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Ratu and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Migration) [2020] AATA 3448
Cases Citing This Decision
8
Ratu and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Migration)
[2020] AATA 3448
Roberts v Smorhun
[2013] ACTSC 218
Ashley v Marinov
[2006] NTSC 62
Cases Cited
1
Statutory Material Cited
0