Quinn v Police

Case [2009] SASC 324

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA

(Magistrates Appeals: Criminal)

QUINN v POLICE

[2009] SASC 324

Judgment of The Honourable Justice Sulan

16 October 2009

CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION RECORDED ON GUILTY PLEA - PARTICULAR CASES

MAGISTRATES - APPEALS AND REVIEW - SOUTH AUSTRALIA - APPEAL TO SUPREME COURT - PRINCIPLES ON WHICH COURT ACTS - CONVICTION ON PLEA OF GUILTY

Appeal against conviction - appellant found guilty of applying force directly to the victim and thereby causing her harm - whether verdict was against the weight of the evidence and is unsafe and unsatisfactory - appeal dismissed.

Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) s 20(4); Magistrates Court Act 1991 (SA) s 42; Supreme Court Rules 2006 (SA) r 292(1), referred to.
Taylor v Hayes (1990) SASR 290; Wigg v Architects Board (SA) (1984) 36 SASR 111; C, GM v Police [2007] SASC 310; Coghlan v Cumberland [1898] 1 Ch 704, considered.

QUINN v POLICE
[2009] SASC 324

Magistrates Appeal

  1. SULAN J: This is an appeal against conviction. The defendant pleaded not guilty to aggravated assault of Cindie Marie McFarland, thereby causing her harm contrary to s 20(4) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA).

  2. The sole ground of appeal pursued by the appellant is that the verdict of the Magistrate was against the weight of evidence and is, therefore, unsafe and unsatisfactory. 

    Background

  3. The charge arose out of an incident which occurred in the early hours of the morning of 1 January 2008 at the home of the complainant, Cindie Marie McFarland.  The complainant is married to the defendant.  They had been estranged for approximately seven years.  On New Year’s Eve in 2007, there was a party at the complainant’s home.  The defendant was staying at the home for the Christmas period in order that he could be with their son, Matthew, who lived there with his mother.  Matthew, who was 20 years of age at the time, was present with his girlfriend and other young people who had come to the premises.  Substantial amounts of alcohol and illicit drugs were consumed during the course of the evening. 

  4. In the early hours of the morning on New Year’s Day, there was an argument between Matthew and the defendant.  According to the complainant, who had spent most of the night in her bedroom, she heard the defendant say something about getting a machete.  She said that she saw the defendant and her son arguing in the hallway.  The defendant was brandishing a large kitchen knife in his hand, which she described as a machete.  She was concerned that he might use the knife to injure Matthew.   The defendant’s brother, Patrick, was in the vicinity standing next to Matthew, who was facing the defendant.  According to the complainant, she grabbed a cricket bat, which was in the kitchen, and approached the defendant from behind her son.  She leaned over and tried to hit the defendant on the wrist with the cricket bat…

Continue reading Quinn v Police

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Quinn v Police [2009] SASC 324
Case
[2009] SASC 324
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal against the conviction of the appellant, who was found guilty of applying force directly to the victim and thereby causing her harm, was dismissed by the Supreme Court. The appellant argued that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence and was therefore unsafe and unsatisfactory. The incident in question occurred at the home of the complainant, Cindie Marie McFarland, on New Year’s Day 2008. The complainant alleged that the appellant, her estranged husband, had brandished a large kitchen knife during an argument with their son and that she had attempted to prevent him from harming their son by striking him with a cricket bat. The appellant argued that the injuries the complainant sustained were caused by another person, but the Magistrate found the complainant’s evidence to be truthful and consistent, and rejected the appellant’s implausible account.

The legal issue before the Supreme Court was whether the verdict of the Magistrate was against the weight of the evidence and was therefore unsafe and unsatisfactory. The court considered the evidence presented by both the complainant and the appellant and found that the Magistrate had correctly assessed the credibility of the witnesses and the evidence. The court noted that the Magistrate had found the complainant to be generally truthful and impressive, and had rejected the appellant’s implausible account of events. The court held that the Magistrate’s decision was not against the weight of the evidence and was therefore safe and satisfactory.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal against conviction. The court held that the Magistrate had correctly assessed the evidence and had reached a verdict that was supported by the evidence. The court found that the appellant’s argument that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence was without merit. The court noted that the Magistrate had carefully considered the evidence and had reached a verdict that was consistent with the evidence presented. The court held that the appellant’s appeal against conviction was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

The sole ground of appeal pursued by the appellant is that the verdict of the Magistrate was against the weight of evidence and is, therefore, unsafe and unsatisfactory. Background The charge arose out of an incident which occurred in the early hours of the morning of 1 January 2008 at the home of the complainant, Cindie Marie McFarland. The complainant is married to the defendant. They had been estranged for approximately seven years. On New Year’s Eve in 2007, there was a party at the complainant’s home. The defendant was staying at the home for the Christmas period in order that he could be with their son, Matthew, who lived there with his mother. Matthew, who was 20 years of age at the time, was present with his girlfriend and other young people who had come to the premises. Substantial amounts of alcohol and illicit drugs were consumed during the course of the evening. In the early hours of the morning on New Year’s Day, there was an argument between Matthew and the defendant. According to the complainant, who had spent most of the night in her bedroom, she heard the defendant say something about getting a machete. She said that she saw the defendant and her son arguing in the hallway. The defendant was brandishing a large kitchen knife in his hand, which she described as a machete. She was concerned that he might use the knife to injure Matthew. The defendant’s brother, Patrick, was in the vicinity standing next to Matthew, who was facing the defendant. According to the complainant, she grabbed a cricket bat, which was in the kitchen, and approached the defendant from behind her son. She leaned over and tried to hit the defendant on the wrist with the cricket bat to force him to drop the knife. She gave the following evidence:Q.When you got between Matthew and Patrick with the cricket bat, what did you do then. A.Danny actually had the machete I think in his left hand then and he changed to his right. I tried to lean over Matthew but to the side and I tried hitting him on the wrist to make him drop the machete and I think I missed and got him on the elbow. Later, she was asked:Q.After you’ve struck him with the cricket bat to the right elbow, what have you done. What’s happened then.A.Well I remember (sic) saying that I was a bitch or something and he rubbed his elbow because I cracked him on the elbow so I thought pretty much bugger you and tried to like use the opportunity to try and like hit him again on the wrist so that he’d drop the machete and I got him in the head apparently.Q.Did you.A.Apparently I got him in the head.HIS HONOURQ.What makes you say that.A.Because I got told later that I got him in the head.Q.Just tell us what you remember.A.I remember trying to strike his arm again and then him rushing at me and - .Q.You remember trying to hit him where.A.On the wrist again to make him drop the machete.…Q.When you struck Mr Quinn the second time, do you remember his reaction or what happened next.A.Yes, he came straight at me with the machete and hit me and I slid down the wall and there was blood everywhere. I vaguely remember everyone standing around looking and wondering why they weren’t stopping him and I tried to get up the wall and he hit me again and he just kept hitting me.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

He agreed that he did not want to tell the police what had happened. He said that was because he did not want the police to take action. He said that he had gone to the Noarlunga Hospital. His head had been bandaged. He refused to allow the hospital to stitch his head wound.The Magistrate’s decision The Magistrate considered the evidence of the complainant and the defendant. He concluded:In relation to the victim I found her to be generally truthful and impressive – impressive in the sense that she was what one would call ‘a battler’. She had obviously led a very hard life. She was not, in my view, very intelligent. One indeed only has to look at the photographs to see what I mean. I pose the question, did she ever appear to me to be deceitful, to be lying, to be fabricating evidence, and the answer I am firmly of the view is no, she was not. There is the theme throughout her evidence that she was there to protect her son. It is perfectly clear and she gives a perfectly clear account how she was struck numerous times by the defendant, who she alleged had the knife.The defendant, when giving his evidence, in my view gave a very implausible account. He was there, he was hit in the head, at the very least, yet he did not see how these injuries to her occurred. On his account he has not been told by anyone how her injuries occurred, because he has not told us that anyone else saw how they were caused. He was, in the presence of police, asked what had happened and he said that he did not want to tell what had happened and he did not want the police to take any action. The Magistrate concluded that the knife, even though described as a machete, was a large kitchen knife. He accepted the complainant’s evidence that she was concerned that the defendant might accidentally hurt Matthew when he was waving the knife around during the course of the argument. He concluded that she hit the defendant with the cricket bat, initially on the arm, in order to have him drop the knife. She then struck him on the forehead. After that occurred, the defendant attacked her and struck her a number of times with the knife. The Magistrate observed that, on the defence case, the complainant’s evidence amounted to a fabrication. He concluded that he was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the complainant had suffered the injuries which had been described by Dr Ahuja. The injuries were consistent with a knife having been used to attack her. He found the complainant to be generally truthful. She did not appear to him to be deceitful, lying or fabricating the evidence. He observed that her evidence was consistent in that she wanted to protect her son, and that she gave a perfectly clear account about how she was struck numerous times by the defendant, whom she alleged had the knife. The Magistrate was unimpressed by the defendant’s evidence. He considered that the defendant’s account of what occurred was implausible. He did not accept the defendant’s evidence that the defendant had no idea how the victim’s injuries occurred. The Magistrate was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant struck the complainant with the knife.The appeal

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.