Police v Ryan - [2023] NSWLC 4

Local Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Police v Ryan [2023] NSWLC 4
Hearing dates: 17 February 2023, 21 March 2023
Decision date: 28 March 2023
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Clisdell LCM
Decision:
Not Guilty of Reckless Wounding
Guilty of Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm

Catchwords:
CRIME — Violent Offences — Glassing — Reckless wounding — Assault occasioning actual bodily harm — Affray — Self defence

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) ss 35(4), 59(1), 93C(1), 418(1) and 418(2), 419

Cases Cited:
Doran v Director of Public Prosecutions; Brunton v Director of Public Prosecutions [2019] NSWSC 1191
R v Katarzynski [2002] NSWSC 613
Colosimo and Ors v Director of Public Prosecutions(NSW) (2005) 64 NSWLR 645; [2005] NSWSC 854
Colosimo & Orsv Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) [2006] NSWCA 293
Douglas v R [2005] NSWCCA 419

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: NSW Police (Prosecutor)
Stuart Ryan (Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr J Pappas (Defendant)
Solicitors:
Sergeant B McLean (Prosecutor)
Lewis & Co Cooma (Defendant)

File Number(s): 2022/00200930
Publication restriction: Nil

JUDGMENT

An uneventful day of Rugby at Bungendore ended in both the Accused and Complainant glassing each other at the Lake Jindabyne Hotel at around 10:38 pm. The Accused was the coach of the Jindabyne Bushpigs Women’s Rugby team and the Complainant was a club supporter. Up until shortly before the incident at the Lake Jindabyne Hotel they had regarded each other as friends. They had travelled to Bungendore for the game and returned to Jindabyne without incident.
The incident at the Hotel was captured on CCTV and as such the factual matrix can be determined without the reliance on memory or recollection. There is however some disagreement about what the CCTV discloses between the Prosecution and Defence.
There is no dispute that the complainant Amy Robinson struck the accused with her left hand while holding a glass. The glass shattered on impact and the accused suffered minor abrasions to the right side of his face which amounted to actual bodily harm. Ms Robinson was charged with an offence of Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm and pleaded guilty to that offence.
Equally there is no dispute that the accused struck Ms Robinson with his right hand while holding a glass which shattered during the incident causing a serious laceration (alleged by the prosecution to constitute a wound) to the left side of her neck and some minor abrasion to her left ear. She also had an injury to her hand but that laceration was caused by the glass she hit Mr Ryan with breaking on impact and her actions were solely responsible for that injury. The parties fell to the floor and the complainant hit her head, causing another injury to the left side of her head and she said that she lost consciousness. Bystanders pulled the accused off Ms Robinson and she received some first aid treatment at the Hotel before being transported to Hospital for further treatment by Hospital staff.
As a result of the incident Mr Ryan…

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 Ryan

Details

AGLC: Police v Ryan [2023] NSWLC 4
Case: [2023] NSWLC 4
Decision Date: 28 March 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Police v Ryan, the defendant was charged with various offences arising from an altercation in which a glass bottle was used as a weapon. The incident occurred in a public place and involved multiple participants. The matter was heard in the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria. The defendant was accused of reckless wounding, assault occasioning actual bodily harm, and affray. The crux of the case turned on the defendant's actions during the confrontation and the extent of his involvement in the violence.

The legal issues before the court included whether the defendant had acted with the requisite mens rea for reckless wounding, whether the assault had caused actual bodily harm, and whether the incident constituted an affray. A significant point of contention was the defendant's claim of self-defence, which was evaluated against the statutory and common law standards applicable in Victoria. The court had to determine if the defendant's actions were proportionate and necessary in response to the perceived threat.

The court found that while the defendant had used a glass bottle, which could have caused serious injury, the evidence did not support a finding of reckless wounding. The injuries sustained by the victim did not meet the threshold of actual bodily harm as defined by statute. However, the court did find the defendant guilty of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, as the injuries inflicted were sufficient to amount to such harm. The court was not persuaded that the incident constituted an affray, given the specific criteria required under the law. The court acquitted the defendant of reckless wounding but convicted him of the lesser charge of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. No conviction was made for affray. The court's decision was rendered with careful consideration of the evidence and legal principles applicable to the facts of the case.

Orders

Orders of the court

Not Guilty of Reckless Wounding

Guilty of Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm

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 Ryan [2023] NSWLC 4
Hearing dates:	17 February 2023, 21 March 2023
Decision date:	28 March 2023
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Clisdell LCM
Decision:	Not Guilty of Reckless Wounding Guilty of Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm
Catchwords:	CRIME — Violent Offences — Glassing — Reckless wounding — Assault occasioning actual bodily harm — Affray — Self defence
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) ss 35(4), 59(1), 93C(1), 418(1) and 418(2), 419
Cases Cited:	Doran v Director of Public Prosecutions; Brunton v Director of Public Prosecutions [2019] NSWSC 1191 R v Katarzynski [2002] NSWSC 613 Colosimo and Ors v Director of Public Prosecutions(NSW) (2005) 64 NSWLR 645; [2005] NSWSC 854 Colosimo & Orsv Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) [2006] NSWCA 293 Douglas v R [2005] NSWCCA 419
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	NSW Police (Prosecutor) Stuart Ryan (Defendant)
Representation:	Counsel: Mr J Pappas (Defendant) Solicitors: Sergeant B McLean (Prosecutor) Lewis & Co Cooma (Defendant)
File Number(s):	2022/00200930
Publication restriction:	Nil