R v Booth - [2021] ACTSC 224

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Booth
Citation:	[2021] ACTSC 224
Hearing Dates:	31 August and 1 September 2021
DecisionDate:	1 September 2021
Before:	Mossop J
Decision:	See [11] and [16]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – where accused was acquitted at jury trial – transfer charges of common assault – guilty on one charge – offence at low end of the spectrum – nominal punishment appropriate in the circumstances – charge dismissed
Legislation Cited: Cases Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), s 26 Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), s 17 Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), s 312 R v Booth [2021] ACTSC 223
Parties:	The Queen ( Crown) Stancy Booth ( Accused)
Representation:	Counsel A Williamson (31 August 2021) and S Jerome (1 September 2021) ( Crown) K Musgrove ( Accused)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions ( Crown) McKenna Taylor ( Accused)
File Number:	SCC 182 of 2019

MOSSOP J:

Introduction

Stancy Booth, who is known as Bonnie Booth, was acquitted of a count of aggravated burglary contrary to s 312 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT). That was put both on the basis of joint commission as well as commission by her alone. There were two transfer charges of common assault contrary to s 26 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT). One of those charges is of an assault on a person who I will refer to as LD (CC2019/1359), the other on Desi Connors (CC2019/1361).

In short, I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the accused assaulted LD but not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that she assaulted Desi Connors. In these reasons I will refer to people by their first names. This is how they were referred to in the trial. I do not intend any disrespect to them by referring to them in this informal way.

Evidence and assessment of witnesses

For a summary of the circumstances leading to the alleged assaults, see R v Booth [2021] ACTSC 223.

Desi gave evidence that while they were arguing, Bonnie punched LD in the mouth and he was bleeding.

Desi gave evidence that while she was standing with Deanne and Bonnie, Bonnie punched her in the face. In cross-examination she said that she saw a hand punch LD and assumed it was Bonnie because Bonnie was the only person standing in front of him. Later when she was outside she asked LD who had hit him, and he pointed at Bonnie.

LD said that once he had pushed Tiam Fisher out, Bonnie punched him in the face. Later in the evidence-in-chief interview he pointed to his lip and told police that he did not know if they could still see the mark. He also said that they kept arguing and screaming and that was when Bonnie punched his mum. He did not see where the punch landed from the angle where he was. It was suggested to him in cross-examination that he had grabbed the…

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 R v Booth

Details

AGLC: R v Booth [2021] ACTSC 224
Case: [2021] ACTSC 224
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Booth, the defendant, Stancy Booth, was acquitted of aggravated burglary but faced transfer charges of common assault. The Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory presided over the case, with Justice Mossop delivering the judgment. The defendant was charged with assaulting LD and Desi Connors. The court found the defendant guilty of assaulting LD but acquitted her of assaulting Desi due to reasonable doubt. The court took into account the evidence from witnesses, including inconsistencies and the chaotic nature of the events. The defendant raised the defense of self-defense, but the court found it to be unsubstantiated.

The legal issues in this case included determining the defendant's guilt or innocence regarding the common assault charges and deciding the appropriate punishment if found guilty. The court had to weigh the evidence presented, including witness testimonies and the defendant's defense, to make its decision. In delivering the judgment, Justice Mossop assessed the credibility of the witnesses and considered the inconsistencies in their accounts. The court also considered the defense of self-defense and found it to be unsubstantiated. Regarding sentencing, the court found that the offense was at the lower end of the spectrum and decided that a nominal punishment was appropriate under the circumstances.

Justice Mossop, in his ruling, found the defendant guilty of the assault charge against LD but dismissed the charge against Desi Connors due to reasonable doubt. The court acknowledged the defendant's age, health conditions, family circumstances, and role in the community as mitigating factors. Considering these factors and the relatively minor nature of the offense, the court decided that a nominal punishment was suitable. Therefore, the court dismissed the charge under section 17 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), imposing no further punishment on the defendant.

Orders