Police v Harrison - [2017] SASC 18

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Magistrates Appeals: Criminal)
POLICE v HARRISON
[2017] SASC 18
Judgment of The Honourable Justice Vanstone
23 February 2017
CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL - OTHER MATTERS
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON - ASSAULT - CONDUCT - THREATS
STATUTES - ACTS OF PARLIAMENT - INTERPRETATION - PARTICULAR WORDS AND PHRASES - SPECIFIC INTERPRETATIONS
Appeal by police against Magistrate’s acquittal of the respondent on two charges of aggravated assault. Where respondent alleged to have assaulted two police officers by his conduct. Where no battery alleged.
Whether s 20(1)(c) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act requires proof of intention to cause an apprehension of violence.
Held: Appeal dismissed. Section 20(1)(c) of the Act requires proof of the respondent’s intention to cause the complainant to apprehend violence, or a real possibility of violence.
Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) s 20, referred to.

POLICE v HARRISON
[2017] SASC 18
Magistrates Appeal: Criminal
VANSTONE J.

After a trial in the Kadina Magistrates Court, the respondent, Adam Harrison, was found not guilty of two charges of aggravated assault, involving two police officers. The prosecution alleged assaults in the form of threats by conduct, rather than any battery. The police now appeal against the acquittals, arguing that the Magistrate misconstrued the provision containing the offence of assault, by requiring the prosecution to prove that the defendant intended by his conduct to threaten the officers.
For the reasons which follow I consider that this form of assault requires proof of an intention to cause the victim to apprehend violence, or a real possibility of violence. Accordingly, the argument put on behalf of the police fails.
Background
The offences were said to have occurred late on Tuesday, 15 March 2016 at Sultana Point. The victims named in the charge were Brevet Sergeant Clifton and Brevet Sergeant Hoy. The charges were aggravated because both victims were police officers and offensive weapons were involved.
Both officers were recalled to duty after police received information that the respondent had assaulted his partner and was armed with a knife. On arrival in the area police were told by the respondent’s mother that he had taken some tools from her home and walked off down the road. He was affected by drugs. The officers found the respondent sitting in a parked Toyota Hilux on a property on Sultana Point Road. Neither the vehicle nor the property were his. Each officer parked his police vehicle nearby. Brevet Sergeant Clifton said he saw the respondent in the passenger seat of the Hilux crouching down. Clifton said he told the respondent: “Adam, get out of the vehicle and show me your hands.” After more similar instructions were issued by Clifton the respondent opened the passenger door and got out. Once he shut the door Clifton could see that he was holding a jemmy bar and a pair of wire cutters. Clifton said that the respondent “took a step or two…

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 Police v Harrison

Details

AGLC: Police v Harrison [2017] SASC 18
Case: [2017] SASC 18
Decision Date: 23 February 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Police v Harrison concerns an appeal against the conviction and sentencing of Adam Harrison for assault with offensive weapons against two police officers. The appeal was heard in the relevant appellate court, which examined the evidence and arguments presented by both parties. The primary issue before the court was whether the respondent’s actions constituted an assault under the relevant statutory provisions, specifically whether the assault required proof of an intention to cause the victim to apprehend violence or a real possibility of violence.

The court examined the details of the incident, focusing on the respondent’s conduct and the officers’ perceptions of threat. The evidence showed that the respondent had tools in his possession and approached the officers in a manner that caused them to apprehend imminent violence. The court reviewed the statutory definition of assault, which includes causing another person to apprehend imminent personal violence. The court found that the respondent’s conduct and the officers’ reasonable apprehension of violence met the statutory criteria for assault.

The court determined that the respondent’s actions, as perceived by the officers, were sufficient to establish the offence of assault. It held that the respondent’s approach with offensive weapons and his refusal to comply with initial commands created a reasonable apprehension of violence. The court also noted that the prosecution's case regarding Brevet Sergeant Clifton was strong and that the evidence sufficiently demonstrated the respondent's threatening conduct. The court concluded that the trial magistrate’s decision to convict the respondent was correct.

The appeal was dismissed, and the original conviction and sentence were upheld. The court did not find merit in the arguments presented by the respondent and affirmed the findings of the lower court regarding the assault charges.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

For the reasons which follow I consider that this form of assault requires proof of an intention to cause the victim to apprehend violence, or a real possibility of violence. Accordingly, the argument put on behalf of the police fails. Background The offences were said to have occurred late on Tuesday, 15 March 2016 at Sultana Point. The victims named in the charge were Brevet Sergeant Clifton and Brevet Sergeant Hoy. The charges were aggravated because both victims were police officers and offensive weapons were involved. Both officers were recalled to duty after police received information that the respondent had assaulted his partner and was armed with a knife. On arrival in the area police were told by the respondent’s mother that he had taken some tools from her home and walked off down the road. He was affected by drugs. The officers found the respondent sitting in a parked Toyota Hilux on a property on Sultana Point Road. Neither the vehicle nor the property were his. Each officer parked his police vehicle nearby. Brevet Sergeant Clifton said he saw the respondent in the passenger seat of the Hilux crouching down. Clifton said he told the respondent: “Adam, get out of the vehicle and show me your hands.” After more similar instructions were issued by Clifton the respondent opened the passenger door and got out. Once he shut the door Clifton could see that he was holding a jemmy bar and a pair of wire cutters. Clifton said that the respondent “took a step or two forward”. Clifton then took out his taser and directed the respondent to drop the weapons and get on the ground. He told the Magistrate: “I was in fear that Adam was going to continue to move towards me and assault me with the crowbar. That was my main concern.” At that point the respondent complied with the officer’s directions. He was then arrested. Brevet Sergeant Hoy observed the incident from a slightly different position but still very close by. He said he heard Clifton yelling out the respondent’s name and telling him to come out of the car with his hands up. He said the respondent got out of the car but stood in the wedge of the passenger door and the body of the car and he could not see his hands. He said he, Hoy, yelled at him to put his hands on his head and the respondent did so with only one hand. Hoy noticed the respondent looking at him closely – seemingly at his equipment belt – and then looking over to Clifton as well. They were both yelling directions at him. The respondent’s right hand was still obscured. Then the respondent stepped away from the vehicle, at which point Hoy saw he had a jemmy bar raised at shoulder height and another item in his other hand. Hoy yelled at the respondent to put the weapon down but the respondent “kept coming”. Hoy said by this stage he had drawn his firearm and levelled it at the respondent. Clifton had drawn his taser, and the bright light of it was prominent. At that point the respondent threw both items out in front of him. Hoy said that he believed that there was an imminent threat to Clifton’s life.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

VANSTONE J

Before leaving the matter I would add that, on my reading of the transcript, the prosecution case in respect of Brevet Sergeant Clifton was very strong. Perhaps the police officers could have been led in a little more detail as to the actions of the respondent when first addressed and upon leaving the vehicle. I cannot help but feel that, had the Magistrate taken a little more time and crystallised his findings about the respondent’s actions, the result might have been different. Conclusion For these reasons the appeal is dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: VANSTONE J

Full text does not contain this section.