R v Bird-Walton (a pseudonym)

[2020] NSWDC 730

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

R v Bird-Walton (A pseudonym) [2020] NSWDC 730

Hearing dates:

23,24,25 and 28 September 2020

Date of orders:

06 November 2020

Decision date:

06 November 2020

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Before:

Grant DCJ

Decision:

The accused is found guilty of count 1.

Catchwords:

Criminal Law - Judge alone trial – meaning of reckless grievous bodily harm – fractured skull – expert evidence

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act 1900

Criminal Procedure Act 1986

Cases Cited:

Fleming v The Queen (1998) 197CLR 250

Swan v R [2016] NSWCCA 79

Haoui v R [2008] NSWCCA 209

R v Woodland [2007] NSWCCA 29

Singh v DPP (2006) 164 A Crim R 284

Vann v Palmer [2001] ACTSC 12

The Queen v Baden Clay (2016) 258 CLR 308

Category:

Principal judgment

Parties:

Regina (Crown)
Accused (NBW)

Representation:

Counsel:
Mr Smith (Crown)
Mr King (accused)

Solicitors:
Ms Coleman (Crown)
Ms Mckay (Legal Aid)

File Number(s):

2019/00122078

Publication restriction:

Non publication order re identity of accused and the complainant.

Judgment

1. HIS HONOUR: On 23 September the accused, NBW was arraigned before me at the Albury District Court on the following charge: between 26 October 2018 and 29 October 2018 at Merungle Hill in the State of New South Wales, NBW did recklessly cause grievous bodily harm to AT, contrary to s 35(2) of the Crimes Act 1900.

2. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge. The matter proceeded as a judge alone trial, as consented to by the parties on 24 August 2020.

DIRECTIONS

3. In compliance with s 133(2) and (3) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and as required by the decision of the High Court in Fleming v The Queen (1998) 197CLR 250, I remind myself of the following principles of law: as the accused has pleaded that she is not guilty and elected trial by judge alone it becomes my duty and responsibility to consider whether the accused is guilty or not guilty of the charge and to return my verdict according to the evidence that I have heard.

4. I have received final submissions from the Crown and Mr King of counsel. I will consider the submissions that have been made and give to the submissions such weight as I think they deserve. I note that in no sense are those submissions evidence in the case.

5. I know that as the tribunal of fact I am expected to use my individual qualities of reasoning, my experience, my understanding of people and human affairs and my common sense. I acknowledge that I have very important matters to decide in this case, important not only to the accused but also the whole community. I must act impartially, dispassionately and fearlessly. I must not let sympathy or emotion sway my judgment. As the sole judge of the facts I must not act capriciously or irrationally. I am obliged to determine all relevant issues of fact according to the evidence that has been presented during the course of the trial. That evidence includes the…