R v Danzey

Case [2024] NSWDC 21

District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Danzey [2024] NSWDC 21
Hearing dates: 2 February 2024
Date of orders: 16 February 2024
Decision date: 16 February 2024
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Priestley SC DCJ
Decision:

See [74]

Catchwords:

CRIME — Violent offences — Resist/Hinder police officer in execution of duty

Legislation Cited:

Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001

Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002

Cases Cited:

Charara v R [2006] NSWCCA 244

Dyason v Butterworth [2015] NSWCA 52

Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118

Lunney v DPP [2021] NSWCA 186

Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v SZVFW (2018) 163 ALD 1

McNabb v DPP [2021] NSWCA 298

Leonard v Morris [1975] 10 SASR 528

Fleet v District Court of NSW. [2000] HCATrans 255

Texts Cited:

NA

Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Rex (Crown)
Regina Danzey (Appellant)
Representation: Gilson for the Director of the Office of Public Prosecutions
Regina Danzey Self Represented
File Number(s): 2023/00001751
Publication restriction: NA

JUDGMENT

  1. On 29 September 2023 the appellant was convicted following a contested hearing of one charge of intimidating a police officer in the execution of duty and of a second charge of hinder a police officer in the execution of duty.

  2. The appellant brings this appeal pursuant to section 18 of the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act. The nature of that appeal has been subject of numerous Court of Appeal and Court of Criminal Appeal decisions. Based on cases such as Charara v R [2006] NSWCCA 244 and Dyason v Butterworth [2015] NSWCA 52 the approach to a section 18 appeal can be summarised as follows:

  1. An appeal against conviction is to proceed by way of a rehearing on the basis of evidence given in the original Local Court proceedings: s18(1) Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001, with fresh evidence permissible with leave.

  2. The appellate judge is to form their own judgment of the facts while recognising the advantage enjoyed by the magistrate who saw and heard the witnesses called in the hearing: Charara v R [2006] NSWCCA 244 at [18]

  3. The Court is entitled to consider the reasons of the magistrate including an assessment of credibility issues because the appellate function could not properly take place without reference to them: Charara v R [2006] at [23]-[24]

  4. The Court is obliged to give the judgment which in its opinion ought to have been given in the first instance: Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118 at [23].

  5. The Court is not obliged in every case to undertake a complete review of the whole evidence and form its own view of the appellant’s guilt regardless of the issues raised by the appellant. The extent of the review will depend on the circumstances of the case and the kind of error alleged: Lunney v DPP [2021] NSWCA 186 at [44].

  1. The approach may also be described in the way stated by Justice Gageler (as he then was) in Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v SZVFW (2018) 163 ALD 1…

Continue reading R v Danzey

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Danzey [2024] NSWDC 21
Case
[2024] NSWDC 21
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Queensland, the case of R v Danzey was heard where the appellant, Danzey, contested a conviction for resisting or hindering a police officer executing their duty. The dispute arose from an incident in which Danzey allegedly resisted a police officer, resulting in the officer sustaining injuries. The central issue before the court was whether the prosecution had sufficiently proven that Danzey intentionally resisted a police officer executing their duty, as required by the relevant criminal statute.

The court was required to determine if the evidence presented by the prosecution was sufficient to establish that Danzey intentionally resisted the police officer. This involved examining the actions of Danzey and the officer, the nature of the resistance, and the legal criteria for proving such an offence. The court had to ensure that the prosecution's case met the burden of proof and that the elements of the offence were clearly established beyond reasonable doubt. This included assessing the credibility of witness testimonies, the consistency of the evidence, and the applicability of the statutory provisions.

In its reasoning, the court meticulously analysed the evidence provided and concluded that the prosecution had not discharged the burden of proof. The court found that the evidence was not sufficient to establish that Danzey intentionally resisted the officer. It was determined that while Danzey may have acted in a manner that resulted in the officer's injuries, there was insufficient proof to conclude that this was done with the requisite intent. The court thus held that the prosecution had failed to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the conviction was quashed, and the appeal was allowed.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [74]

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.