MICHAEL O’CONNELL v DAVID MCMENNEMIN
[2014] ACTSC 112 (4 June 2014)
APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – In General and Right of Appeal – Failure of Special Magistrate to give sufficient reasons for decision – Failure of Special Magistrate to make required factual findings in reasons for decision – Failure of Special Magistrate to detail the weight afforded to evidence of each witness – Reasons for decision need not be elaborate or lengthy – Reasons must articulate the essential grounds on which the decision rests – Reasons of the Special Magistrate sufficient on the issue of the offence itself – Reasons of the Special Magistrate insufficient on the issue of self-defence – Appeal ground upheld
APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – In General and Right of Appeal – Defence of self-defence – Misapplication of the law relating to self-defence – Issue not properly addressed in the reasons of the Special Magistrate – Remarks of the Special Magistrate on the issue of self-defence problematic – Appeal ground upheld
APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – Interference with Special Magistrate’s Finding of Fact – Whether verdict unsafe or unsatisfactory – Misapplication of the law relating to self-defence does not lead to an inevitable acquittal – Appeal ground dismissed
Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT), s 208(1), Pt 3.10
Australian Capital Territory Magistrates Court, Practice Direction No 1 of 2009, Case Management Hearings and Committal Hearings)
Brooks v McShane (1996) 89 A Crim R 195
Fleming v The Queen (1998) 197 CLR 250
Gannon v Police (2005) 93 SASR 289
Hanel v Shoemark [2010] ACTSC 67
Liberato v The Queen (1985) 157 CLR 507
M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487
Papps v Police (2000) 77 SASR 210
Pettitt v Dunkley [1971] 1 NSWLR 376
R v Donovan [1934] 2 KB 498
R v Howe (1958) 100 CLR 448
Soulemezis v Dudley (Holdings) Pty Ltd (1987) 10 NSWLR 247
T v Medical Board of South Australia (1992) 58 SASR 382
Wood v Marsh (2003) 139 A Crim R 475
Zecevic v Director of Public Prosecutions (Victoria) (1987) 162 CLR 645
ON APPEAL FROM THE MAGISTRATES COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
No. SCA 82 of 2013
Judge: Refshauge J
Supreme Court of the ACT
Date: 4 June 2014
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE )
) No. SCA 82 of 2013
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY )
ON APPEAL FROM THE MAGISTRATES COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
MICHAEL O’CONNELL
Appellant
v
DAVID MCMENNEMIN
Respondent
ORDER
Judge: Refshauge J
Date: 4 June 2014
Place: Canberra
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
The appeal be upheld.
The orders of the Magistrates Court convicting Michael O’Connell and sentencing him be set aside.
The proceedings be remitted to the Magistrates Court to be heard and determined according to law.
The Respondent pay the Appellant’s costs of the appeal.
This appeal arises out of a dispute over a deceased estate. The complainant, Melise O’Connell, was the executor of her grandmother’s estate, which included a house in Ainslie.
Arrangements were made with her brother, Michael…
Continue reading O'Connell v McMennemin
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- O'Connell v McMennemin [2014] ACTSC 112
- Case
- [2014] ACTSC 112
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues that the court was required to decide centred around the sufficiency of the Special Magistrate's reasons for the decision and whether the Special Magistrate misapplied the law in relation to the defence of self-defence. Specifically, the court had to assess whether the reasons provided were adequate to understand the basis of the decision and whether the law was correctly applied in relation to the self-defence argument. The appellant argued that the Special Magistrate failed to give sufficient reasons, particularly in relation to the weight afforded to the evidence of each witness, and that the reasons provided were insufficient to understand how the issue of self-defence was addressed.
The court found that the Special Magistrate's reasons were sufficient in some respects, particularly in identifying the offence and establishing the factual basis of the incident. However, the court held that the reasons were insufficient in relation to the issue of self-defence. The Special Magistrate did not detail the weight given to the evidence of each witness, and the remarks made on self-defence were problematic as they did not properly address the legal requirements for this defence. Consequently, the court held that the Special Magistrate misapplied the law in relation to self-defence, leading to an unsafe verdict. The court also noted that while the misapplication of the law relating to self-defence did not necessarily mean that the verdict was unsafe, in this case, it did lead to an unsafe verdict due to the lack of proper reasoning.
The appeal was upheld, and the orders of the Magistrates Court were set aside. The proceedings were remitted to the Magistrates Court to be heard and determined according to law, and the respondent was ordered to pay the appellant's costs of the appeal.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The appeal be upheld.
2. The orders of the Magistrates Court convicting Michael O’Connell and sentencing him be set aside.
3. The proceedings be remitted to the Magistrates Court to be heard and determined according to law.
4. The Respondent pay the Appellant’s costs of the appeal.
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.