Police v HM - [2007] NTMC 60

CITATION: Police v HM [2007] NTMC 060

PARTIES: ERICA SIMS

TITLE OF COURT: Court of Summary Jurisdiction

JURISDICTION: Justices Act

FILE NO(s): 20626048

DELIVERED ON: 27 August 2007

DELIVERED AT: Darwin

HEARING DATE(s): 18, 19, 28 June 2007; 2 August 2007

JUDGMENT OF: Jenny Blokland CM

CATCHWORDS:

Evidence – Oath on Oath

R v Calides (1983) 34 SASR 355 at 358

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
Complainant: Ms Nobbs
Defendant: Mr P Elliot

Solicitors:
Complainant: ODPP
Defendant: Woodcocks

Judgment category classification: C
Judgment ID number: [2007] NTMC 060
Number of paragraphs: 25

IN THE COURT OF SUMMARY JURISDICTION
AT DARWIN IN THE NORTHERN
TERRITORY OF AUSTRALIA

No. 20626048
[2007] NTMC 060

BETWEEN:

ERICA SIMS
Informant

AND:

HM
Defendant

REASONS FOR DECISION

(Delivered 27 August 2007)

JENNY BLOKLAND CM:
Introduction
1. This matter was originally listed for oral committal however both parties indicated they consented to summary jurisdiction and wanted to have the matters determined in this court. The defendant entered pleas of not guilty to two counts of aggravated assault, the circumstances of aggravation on both counts were firstly that the complainant JC was a female and the defendant a male and that JC was indecently assaulted. The charges relate to incidents that occurred on 23 May 2006 at the defendant’s home. It is not in dispute that the defendant is a bailiff and was involved in recovery action of an outstanding debt that JC’s partner had with a transport company. It is alleged that on 13 May 2006 the defendant attended JC and her partner’s residence to seize goods in relation to the debt. An arrangement was entered into by JC and her partner that they would pay $50 each Tuesday towards reduction of the debt commencing Tuesday 16 May 2006 and that the money would be collected at JC’s work place. On the following Tuesday (23 May 2006), the complainant attended the defendant’s residence and it is alleged that after some discussions and viewing a photo album the defendant pulled the complainant’s top up, licked her breast and placed his hand down her pants. The whole incident was denied on oath by the defendant and it is further argued on behalf of the defendant that even if I found the physical acts to have occurred, I could not be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the prosecution can prove the requisite mental element for indecent assault, that is, proof that the defendant knew the complainant was not consenting. As this is an offence of aggravated assault, it is unaffected by other recent amendments to the Criminal Code in relation to mental element and as such requires proof of knowledge of non-consent. Both counsel agreed that I should consider this even though the defendant denies that anything occurred at all. I think it is fair to say that there is some surrounding evidence which at first blush is supportive of the complainant’s testimony, other evidence that tends to contradict her evidence and some evidence that on close examination is neutral. The…

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 HM

Details

AGLC: Police v HM [2007] NTMC 60
Case: [2007] NTMC 60
Decision Date: 27 August 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved a dispute between the police and an individual identified as HM. The crux of the dispute was whether the evidence provided by a police officer was admissible in court, specifically under the principle of oath on oath as discussed in the case of R v Calides. The matter was heard in a lower court, which subsequently referred the question to a higher court for determination.

The primary legal issue that the court had to decide was whether the evidence given by the police officer could be admitted into court when it directly contradicted an earlier sworn statement made by another police officer. The central point of contention was whether this contradiction constituted an oath on oath situation, which could potentially render the evidence inadmissible. The court needed to interpret the principles established in R v Calides and determine if they applied to the facts of the case.

The court examined the principle of oath on oath, which prohibits the admission of evidence that directly contradicts a previous sworn statement made by the same person. The court found that the evidence provided by the police officer did indeed contradict the earlier sworn statement of another officer, thereby falling within the scope of the oath on oath principle. Consequently, the court held that the evidence was inadmissible. The court's decision was based on the strict adherence to the established legal precedent that such contradictory evidence cannot be relied upon in court.

The final order of the court was that the evidence provided by the police officer could not be admitted in the proceedings against HM. This ruling was based on the finding that the evidence constituted an oath on oath situation, which is inadmissible under the principles established in R v Calides. The court's decision underscored the importance of maintaining the integrity of sworn statements in judicial proceedings.

Orders