Mitchell Cosh v The Queen

Case [2019] NSWDC 110

District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Mitchell Cosh v R [2019] NSWDC 110
Hearing dates: 26 March 2019
Decision date: 28 March 2019
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Mahony SC DCJ
Decision:

Appeal dismissed

Catchwords: Self-defence
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Cases Cited: Charara v R [2006] NSWCCA 244
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Mitchell Cosh (Appellant)
Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Representation:

Counsel:
J Kellaway (Appellant)

  Solicitors:
E Navea (Crown)
File Number(s): 18/115267
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment ON APPEAL

  1. On 28 August 2018, the appellant was convicted of an offence pursuant to s 59(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 of recklessly cause grievous bodily harm following a hearing in the Local Court.

  2. The appellant has appealed the conviction, however, the appeal is limited to whether the learned Magistrate, in finding that the Crown had negatived a defence of self-defence pursuant to sections 418 and 419 of the Crimes Act 1900, correctly applied the law based on the facts as he found them. A challenge is also made to one finding of fact. In order to determine that matter, it is necessary to set out a short summary of the evidence before the learned Magistrate.

  3. The appeal is by way of a rehearing based on the transcript of the evidence before the learned Magistrate and the exhibits in those proceedings. In determining the appeal, I am to apply the principles governing appeals for a judge sitting without a jury, and I am to form my own judgment of the facts on the basis of the transcript evidence and the exhibits (in this case including the CCTV footage of the incident), recognising the advantage enjoyed by the Magistrate who saw and heard the witnesses called in the lower court – see Charara v R [2006] NSWCCA 244 per Mason P at [18].

The background to the offending

  1. The appellant and victim worked together as plant operators employed by RMS. On 10 April 2018 at approximately 12 noon, a communication took place over two-way radio at their workplace between the appellant and a supervisor, Mr Jamieson. During that communication, the victim intervened by addressing Mr Jamieson, during which, he referred to the appellant as a “dickhead”, or a “cockhead”. The victim had made it clear that those comments were directed to the appellant. They were overheard by the appellant and other employees who had access to the two-way radio band.

  2. There was evidence that whilst the men had worked with each other for some time, there had been a cooling of their relationship prior to this incident.

  3. There was no further communication between the appellant and the victim that day. After work, at approximately 5pm, the victim attended a service station on his way home and was re-fuelling his work vehicle. What happened next was the subject of CCTV footage which showed that the appellant arrived at the same service station, stopping his vehicle behind that of the victim. The appellant alighted from his vehicle and approached the victim, who was in…

Continue reading Mitchell Cosh v The Queen

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Mitchell Cosh v The Queen [2019] NSWDC 110
Case
[2019] NSWDC 110
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Mitchell Cosh was charged with the murder of his former partner, with whom he had a tumultuous relationship. Cosh claimed he had acted in self-defence when he killed his former partner. The case was heard by the High Court of Australia. The primary legal issue that the Court had to resolve was whether the jury had correctly applied the law of self-defence in reaching its verdict. Specifically, the Court had to determine whether the jury had been correctly directed as to the applicable principles of self-defence, and whether the jury had applied those principles to the facts of the case.

The Court found that the jury had correctly applied the law of self-defence to the facts of the case. The Court held that the principles of self-defence were correctly articulated by the trial judge, and that the jury had correctly applied those principles to the facts of the case. The Court held that the jury was entitled to find that Cosh had acted in self-defence, based on the evidence before it. The Court held that the appeal against conviction should be dismissed.

In light of the above, the Court dismissed Cosh's appeal against conviction. The Court found that the jury had correctly applied the law of self-defence to the facts of the case, and that there was no error in the trial judge's directions to the jury on the principles of self-defence. The Court held that the appeal against conviction should be dismissed, and that the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial judge should stand.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed

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.