Queensland Police Service v Roche

[2021] QMC 7

MAGISTRATES COURTS OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:	Queensland Police Service v Roche [2021] QMC 7
PARTIES:	QUEENSLAND POLICE SERVICE v DARREN JAMES ROCHE
FILE NO/S:	MAG-00002372/20
DIVISION:	Magistrates Courts
PROCEEDING:	Criminal Trial
ORIGINATING  COURT:	Magistrates Court, Mackay
DELIVERED ON:	27 October 2021
DELIVERED AT:	Mackay
HEARING DATE:	22 February 2021
MAGISTRATE:	Acting Magistrate J M Aberdeen
ORDER:	Charge dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – Offences against the Person – Defences - Assault occasioning bodily harm – Justification of force used in preventing commission of a crime.
CRIMINAL LAW – Offences against the Person – Defences - Assault occasioning bodily harm – Justification of force used in preventing continuation or renewal of a breach of the peace.
CRIMINAL LAW – Offences relating to Parental Rights and of parent against parent’s will.
CRIMINAL LAW – Offences against the Person – Use of force – Requirement that force used be “reasonably necessary” – Force used not excessive.
Criminal Code (Qld) ss. 260, 266, 283, 363
APPEARANCES:	For Prosecution: Snr Const H Beaumont (police prosecutor) For Defence: Defendant in person – not legally represented

REGISTRY: Mackay

MACK-MAG-00002372/20

QUEENSLAND POLICE SERVICE

v

DARREN JAMES ROCHE

DECISION

[1]         The Defendant, Mr Darren Roche, appears before the Court charged with one offence of assault occasioning bodily harm. The charge is in the following terms:

That on the 10th day of January 2020 at Mount Pleasant in the State of
Queensland one Darren James ROCHE unlawfully assaulted one Krysten

Renee PULLEN and thereby did her bodily harm

AND the offence is also a domestic violence offence

[2]         To this charge Mr Roche has entered a plea of “Not Guilty”. This matter came before me, and proceeded to trial on 22 February 2021. This is a criminal proceeding, and the Court must be satisfied beyond any reasonable doubt of the guilt of the Defendant upon this charge. If the Court is not so satisfied, the Defendant is entitled to an acquittal.

[3]         Mr Roche was not legally represented at his trial. As a result, I am alive to the possibility that if any matters of defence are disclosed by the evidence - although not argued by Mr Roche in his defence – it is my duty to assess any such matters against the standard of proof imposed upon the prosecution.

[4]         The evidence before me was of relatively narrow compass. The following witnesses were called by the prosecution:

1 | P a g e

Senior Constable Jason SMITH	Investigating Officer[1]
Krysten BUTCHER (PULLEN)	Victim, and Mr Roche’s former partner[2]
Andrew JUDAS	eye-witness[3]
Leanette KANE	eye-witness[4]
Senior Sergeant Tanya SPITERI	Police photographer[5]

[1] Transcript pp 1-8 to 1-22.

[2] Transcript pp 1-22 to 1-37.

[3] Transcript pp 1-39 to 1-41

[4] Transcript pp 1-41 to 1-44.

[5] Transcript pp 1-44 to 1-45.

[5]         For the defence, the following evidence was called:

Darren ROCHE	Defendant[6]
Samantha ALLEY	Mr Roche’s partner & eye-witness[7]

[6] Transcript pp 1-47 to 1-54.

[7] Transcript pp 1-54 to 1-62.

[6]         The following exhibits were tendered:

Exhibit 1 Body-worn camera…