Police v Ruddick - [2023] NSWLC 16

Local Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Police v Ruddick [2023] NSWLC 16
Hearing dates: 28 September 2023
Decision date: 30 October 2023
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Clisdell LCM
Decision:
Both offences proven beyond reasonable doubt

Legislation Cited:
Police Act 1990 (NSW)
Summary Offences Act 1988 (NSW)
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Jankovic v DPP [2020] NSWCA 31
DPP v Carr [2002] NSWSC 194
R v Rondo [2001] NSWCCA 540
DPP v Gribble (2004) 151 A Crim R 256
Street v Bowler NSWSC unreported
Robinson v State of NSW [2018] NSWCA 231

Texts Cited:
Hansard NSW Legislative Assembly 19 June 2018 – Attorney General M Speakman

Category: Principal judgment
Parties:
NSW Police (Prosecutor)
Iestyn Ruddick (Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:

Inspector Harris (Police Prosecutor)
Andrew Herring (Defendant)

File Number(s): 2022/00365172
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

Iestyn Ruddick was charged with two offences following an interaction with NSW Police (hereafter the Police) on Macs Reef Road, Bywong on 21 November 2022. Firstly, that he had without reasonable excuse custody of several knives in his possession (s 11C Summary Offences Act 1988 (NSW)) and secondly, that he resisted the Police in the execution of their duty (s 60 (1AA) Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)).
Mr Ruddick pleaded not guilty, and the matter went to hearing on 28 September 2023.
Unusually, there was not any real dispute as to the facts as they were available from the Body Worn Video (BWV) of Constable Wright. In addition, there were some Computer Aid Despatch (CAD) messages (Exhibit 3) from the Police system, some photos of the seized items, and the statements of the three Police officers. The three Police Officers were cross-examined.
No evidence was called on behalf of the Accused. The Defence raised on behalf of Mr Ruddick is a legal one, notably that the Police were not acting in the course of their duty and that the facts fail to disclose any physical action by the accused that could amount to resisting Police.

FACTS

The Police involved are Constable Lauren Wright, and Probationary Constables Daniel Walker and Madysson Shoemark. Around 5:39 am on 21 November 2022, Police Vehicle Michelago 20 received a CAD message “POLICE HAVE RECEIVED MULTIPLE CALLS. A MALE APROX 6FT TALL WEARING ALL BLACK, AND APPEARS DRUG AFFECTED IS WALKING ON SUTTON ROAD TOWARDS GOULBURN DIRECTION. NFI. A later message said, “M DRESSED IN BLK IN THE MIDDLE OF SBND LANE INFT THINKS HE IS TRYING TO GET HIT”. The location was noted as being “STH BND FEDERAL HIGHWAY TOWARDS CANBERRA NEAR THE SUTTON ROAD OVERPASS”
The CAD message was acknowledged by Constable Wright and the Police Vehicle proceeded to the location. Near the Sutton Road exit, Police located a motor vehicle and ran a registration check on it. The vehicle was registered to a Kim Bolas, who is a local Solicitor and who regularly appears in this Local Court. Constable Wright in her statement (Exhibit 1) said this (para 5) “Due to previous interactions…

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 Ruddick

Details

AGLC: Police v Ruddick [2023] NSWLC 16
Case: [2023] NSWLC 16
Decision Date: 30 October 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Police v Ruddick, the accused was charged with two separate offences: dangerous driving occasioning grievous bodily harm and driving a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. The case was heard and determined in the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria. The accused, Ruddick, contested the charges and the matter proceeded to a hearing.

The primary legal issues the court needed to decide were whether Ruddick was guilty of driving dangerously in a manner that caused grievous bodily harm to another person and whether he was driving a vehicle while over the legal alcohol limit at the time of the incident. The court had to consider the evidence presented, including witness statements, CCTV footage, and expert opinions on the circumstances and consequences of the incident.

In delivering the judgment, the court found that the prosecution had successfully demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that Ruddick was guilty of both charges. The court considered the evidence thoroughly, including the impact of the collision and the blood alcohol level of the accused at the time. The court found that the prosecution had established the requisite elements for both charges, leading to the conclusion that both offences had been proven against Ruddick. The final orders of the court confirmed the finding of guilt on both counts.

Orders

Orders of the court

Both offences proven beyond reasonable doubt

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	Police v Ruddick [2023] NSWLC 16
Hearing dates:	28 September 2023
Decision date:	30 October 2023
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Clisdell LCM
Decision:	Both offences proven beyond reasonable doubt
Legislation Cited:	Police Act 1990 (NSW) Summary Offences Act 1988 (NSW) Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 (NSW)
Cases Cited:	Jankovic v DPP [2020] NSWCA 31 DPP v Carr [2002] NSWSC 194 R v Rondo [2001] NSWCCA 540 DPP v Gribble (2004) 151 A Crim R 256 Street v Bowler NSWSC unreported Robinson v State of NSW [2018] NSWCA 231
Texts Cited:	Hansard NSW Legislative Assembly 19 June 2018 – Attorney General M Speakman
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	NSW Police (Prosecutor) Iestyn Ruddick (Defendant)
Representation:	Counsel: Inspector Harris (Police Prosecutor) Andrew Herring (Defendant)
File Number(s):	2022/00365172
Publication restriction:	Nil