Police v Stuart Ross Wallin - [2004] NTMC 49

[Back to Main List] [Back to NTMC 2004 List] CITATION: Police v Stuart Ross Wallin [2004] NTMC 049

PARTIES: GARNET ALAN DIXON

STUART ROSS WALLIN

TITLE OF COURT: Summary Jurisdiction

JURISDICTION: Court of Summary - Alice Springs

FILE NO(s): 20321353

DELIVERED ON: 14 April 2004

DELIVERED AT: Alice Springs

HEARING DATE(s): 28, 30 January, 5 March 2004

JUDGMENT OF: M Little

CATCHWORDS:

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
Prosecution: J Burness
Defendant: R Goldflam

Solicitors:
Prosecution: Police Prosecutions
Defendant: NTLAC

Judgment category classification:
Judgment ID number: [2004] NTMC 049
Number of paragraphs: 146

IN THE COURT OF SUMMARY JURISDICTION
AT ALICE SPRINGS IN THE NORTHERN
TERRITORY OF AUSTRALIA

No. 20321353

BETWEEN:

GARNET ALAN DIXON
Police

AND:

STUART ROSS WALLIN
Defendant

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(Delivered 14 April 2004)

Ms M LITTLE SM:
1. The defendant, Stuart Wallin is charged that on 10 October 2003 at Alice Springs he unlawfully assaulted a police officer, namely Constable Hamilton, contrary to section 189A of the Code, that he assaulted a police officer, namely Constable Brand, contrary to section 189A of the Code, that on that same date he resisted members of the police force in the execution of their duty, and further that he behaved in a disorderly manner in the police station, namely Alice Springs Police Station.
2. The defendant pleaded not guilty to the charges. I remind myself that prosecution bears the onus of proving and each and every element of the charges beyond reasonable doubt.
3. Defence indicated at the commencement of proceedings that they objected to the admissibility of certain of the police officers evidence and in particular evidence of all events from the moment when the police effected the taking of the defendant into protective custody.
4. The hearing proceeded with all evidence being taken and that objection noted. I will be summarising the evidence taken and then will make a ruling on the voir dire point prior to dealing with the substantive matters. I accept Mr Goldflam's analysis that, if I reject the evidence from the time of the taking the defendant into protective custody, that counts 1 to 3 will fail for lack of evidence.
5. The first witness to be called was Constable Chris Brand of the Alice Springs Police Force. On 11 October 2003 he was working in the Traffic Section, with Constable Jennifer Hamilton, on the evening shift from 3pm to midnight. At approximately 11pm they were driving back into the police station. As they approached the roundabout at the intersection of Parsons Street and Bath Street they saw a person walking who appeared to be highly intoxicated. He was staggering along the street and having difficulty maintaining his balance. He appeared to be making his way to the Coles Complex on Bath Street.
6. Constable Brand was driving the vehicle. He did a lap around the small roundabout to have a closer look at the person. He stopped the vehicle and spoke to the man. His evidence was that the man said he was going to…

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 Stuart Ross Wallin

Details

AGLC: Police v Stuart Ross Wallin [2004] NTMC 49
Case: [2004] NTMC 49
Decision Date: 14 April 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Police v Stuart Ross Wallin, the defendant was charged with multiple offences including assaulting a police officer, resisting a police officer, and behaving in a disorderly manner in a police station. The defendant pleaded not guilty to all charges. The court had to decide the admissibility of certain police evidence and the substantive charges against the defendant. The court found that the police officers' actions were lawful and proper, and the evidence was admissible. The court found the defendant guilty of assaulting a police officer and resisting police in the execution of their duties. The defendant was acquitted of the charge of assaulting another police officer and behaving in a disorderly manner in a police station. The court found that the defendant's aggressive and hostile behavior towards the police officers justified their actions to take him into protective custody. The court also found that the defendant's use of undue violence in resisting the police officers' apprehension amounted to an unlawful assault on one of the officers.

Orders