Police v Segeyara - [2008] NTMC 19

CITATION: Police v Segeyara [2008] NTMC 019

PARTIES: TRAVIS JAMES WURST

NAZMI SEGEYARA

TITLE OF COURT: Court of Summary Jurisdiction

JURISDICTION: Justices Act, Criminal Code

FILE NO(s): 20719736

DELIVERED ON: 18 March 2008

DELIVERED AT: Darwin

HEARING DATE(s): 6 & 7 February 2008, 4 March 2008 (in Nhulunbuy)

JUDGMENT OF: Jenny Blokland CM

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY – ASSAULT CAUSING HARM – CONSENT – MENTAL ELEMENT

R v Mardday (1998) 7 NTLR 192
R v Raabe [1985] 1 Qd R 115
Largesner v Carroll (1990) 49 A Crim R 51
Carroll v Lergenser (1991) 2 Qd R 206
R v Minor (1991) 79 NTR 1
DPP (NT) v WJI (2004) 219 CLR
Zecevic v DPP (1987) 162 CLR
Sims v Robinson [2008] NTMC, Dr Lowndes SM, 23 January 2008
Daye v Pryce [2000] NTSC, 3 October 2000, Riley J

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
Informant: Mr Walsh
Defendant: Ms Kepert

Solicitors:
Informant: ODPP
Defendant: NTLAC

Judgment category classification: C
Judgment ID number: [2008] NTMC 019
Number of paragraphs: 19

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

No. 20719736
[2008] NTMC 019

BETWEEN:

TRAVIS JAMES WURST
Informant

AND:

NAZMI SEGEYARA
Defendant

REASONS FOR DECISION

(Delivered 18 March 2008)

JENNY BLOKLAND CM:
Introduction
1. Nazmi Segeyara (“the Defendant”) pleaded not guilty to one count of aggravated assault, the circumstance of aggravation being that he caused Stuart Gunn (“the Complainant”) harm. To succeed the prosecution must prove the elements of assault and negative any authorisation, justification or excuse beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution must also prove the aggravated circumstance (harm) beyond reasonable doubt if that part of the charge is to be made out. In this matter I would readily find harm proven as the Complainant lost a tooth (obviously a significant injury) during the incident. The injury was the direct result of a blow from the Defendant. The primary issue is whether the prosecution can negative consent to the assault and/or defensive conduct.

Facts

2. The facts giving rise to the charge occurred on 30 June 2007 at a party at the “Cat Shed”, Nhulunbuy. In general terms during the course of the evening a physical altercation occurred between the Defendant and Complainant resulting in harm to the Complainant. The prosecution witnesses are at odds with each other on some of the most crucial facts. This is no fault of investigators or the prosecutor who has energetically prosecuted the case. The witnesses accounts simply vary significantly, some supportive of the prosecution case, many supportive of the version given by the defendant. In common with many cases of this type, intoxication of varying degrees also undermines the credibility of a number of witnesses. Nine witnesses gave evidence for the prosecution and the Defendant gave evidence in his own case.

3. Mr Gunn’s evidence was that he arrived at the party at about 9.00pm. The Defendant was familiar to him. He spoke to the Defendant who told him he had embarrassed him in front of another guest…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Police v Segeyara and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2008] NTMC 19
Decision Date: 18 March 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Police v Segeyara, the defendant, Nazmi Segeyara, was accused of aggravated assault causing harm. The prosecution needed to prove the elements of assault and negative any authorisation, justification, or excuse beyond reasonable doubt. The primary issue was whether the prosecution could negate consent to the assault and/or defensive conduct. The case involved conflicting accounts from witnesses, with the complainant, Stuart Gunn, alleging that the defendant punched him without provocation. The defendant, however, claimed that the complainant had been aggressive towards him and had consented to a fight.

The court examined the definition of assault under the Northern Territory Criminal Code, which requires that there be no consent to the application of force. The court considered whether the complainant had consented, or given the impression that he had consented to a fight incorporating blows. The court found that the complainant either consented, or gave the impression that he consented to a fight incorporating blows. The court also considered whether the defendant's conduct was justified under the defensive conduct provisions of the Criminal Code.

In conclusion, the court found that the complainant had either consented, or given the impression that he had consented to a fight incorporating blows. The court also found that the defendant's conduct was justified under the defensive conduct provisions of the Criminal Code. Therefore, the court dismissed the charge against the defendant.

This case highlights the importance of considering the context and circumstances of an alleged assault when determining whether consent was given. It also demonstrates the importance of examining the evidence carefully, particularly when there are conflicting accounts from witnesses. Finally, it shows that the principles of criminal responsibility, including consideration of the defendant's belief on consent, apply equally to cases of assault and sexual assault.

Orders