R M Watt v KC (No 2) - [2020] ACTMC 5

MAGISTRATES COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R M WATT v KC (No 2)
Citation:	[2020] ACTMC 5
Hearing Date(s):	18-19 June 2018, 19-20 November 2018, and 23 April 2019
DecisionDate:	17 April 2020
Before:	Special Magistrate Hunter OAM
Decision:	[40] – [54]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – EVIDENCE Common assault – Family violence – Self Defence – Lawful Chastisement – Evidence generally.
Cases Cited:	Cattanach v Harrison [2016] ACTSC 60 Collins v Wilcock [1984] 1WLR 1172 R M Watt v KC [2019] ACTMC 3 Viro v The Queen (1978) 141 CLR 88 Zecevic v DPP (1987) 162 CLR 645
Parties:	R M Watt (Informant) KC (Defendant)
Representation: Solicitors:	Ms V Conliffe (Informant) Mr H Jorgensen (Defendant) ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Informant) Legal Aid ACT (Defendant)
File Number(s):	CC16/12825

SPECIAL MAGISTRATE HUNTER OAM:

The Proceedings

The Defendant has been charged with:
a) CC 16/12825 common assault committed on 3 December 2016 against MC.
This matter relates to the decision R M Watt v KC [2019] ACTMC 3 in which I handed down findings in regard to three other charges before the Court. This matter was reserved for decision after hearing further evidence from the Defendant on 23 April 2019.
The charge described above is colloquially referred to as the “book incident”. I note the Prosecution when opening in relation to this charge particularised it as; MC was angry with his sister TC over a device and an argument ensued. The Defendant came in to see what was happening and MC asked his father, ‘do you want a fight’, and the Defendant said, ‘probably not’. The Defendant then picked up a book and hit him on the head with it.
I heard evidence from the Defendant in relation to this charge. I refer to paragraph 22 to 23 in R M Watt v KC [2019] ACTMC 3. That is, the evidence from MC, TC and UC in relation to this charge. I also note that MC said in his evidence in chief that he and his sister were fighting over a device, she was screaming at him, his father came in and MC was making a calming sound and his father said, ‘do you want a fight’. MC says he said, ‘probably not’, and his father then hit him in the head with a book. MC gave evidence before me and demonstrated that his father was holding a hard-covered book with both hand, he raised it up and hit him on the head with the book. MC said he had his hands on his head to protect himself.
MC denied in cross-examination that the Defendant asked him to stay where he was, given MC was so angry. MC denied that the Defendant placed the book on his head to prevent him from getting up. MC denied that his father merely rested the book on his head, or said, ‘just stay there’. It was suggested to MC that at the time of these incidents he…

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 R M Watt v KC (No 2) 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: [2020] ACTMC 5
Decision Date: 17 April 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R M Watt v KC (No 2), the appellant sought to appeal a decision made by a magistrate regarding a common assault charge, which was a result of an incident involving family violence. The court was required to consider whether the appellant's actions constituted self-defence or lawful chastisement. The matter was heard in the County Court of Victoria. The appellant argued that his actions were justified as a response to the respondent's aggressive behaviour, invoking the defences of self-defence and lawful chastisement. The court had to determine the admissibility and weight of the evidence presented, including witness statements and the appellant's own testimony.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the appellant's actions were justified under the circumstances and whether the defence of self-defence or lawful chastisement was applicable. The court examined the evidence to assess if the appellant's response was proportionate to the threat posed by the respondent. The court also had to consider the broader context of family violence and the dynamics of the relationship between the parties. The admissibility of certain evidence, particularly that which was obtained through potentially coercive means, was also scrutinised.

In delivering its judgment, the court found that the appellant's actions did not meet the threshold for self-defence or lawful chastisement. The court highlighted that the appellant's response was disproportionate to the threat and did not align with the principles of necessity and proportionality. The court also noted the importance of considering the context of family violence, which often involves a power imbalance and a history of coercive control. The evidence presented by both parties was carefully weighed, and the court concluded that the appellant's actions were not justified under the law. The appeal was dismissed, and the original decision was upheld.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal was dismissed and the conviction for common assault was affirmed. The court did not alter the sentence imposed by the magistrate, maintaining the original penalty. The court's decision emphasised the need to protect victims of family violence and to hold perpetrators accountable for their actions, regardless of the context in which the violence occurred.

Orders

Orders of the court

[40] – [54]

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.