R v Davis

The appellant, Davis, appealed against his conviction and sentence for assault occasioning actual bodily harm, arguing that the Magistrate had erred in various respects. The appeal was heard by the District Court of New South Wales. The central issue was whether the Magistrate had erred in determining that consent is not a defence to assault occasioning actual bodily harm. Additionally, the appellant argued that the Magistrate had erred in admitting tendency evidence and that the tendency notified was too general to have significant probative value. Finally, the appellant submitted that the Magistrate was not entitled to rely on parts of the central witness' evidence despite rejecting other parts of that witness' evidence on the basis of credit.

The court held that the Magistrate had indeed erred in concluding that consent was not a defence to assault occasioning actual bodily harm. Consent can be a defence in certain circumstances, and the court found that the Magistrate's conclusion was incorrect. However, the court found that this error was not substantial enough to affect the result of the trial, and therefore, the appeal was dismissed in relation to this ground. The court also found that the Magistrate had not erred in admitting the tendency evidence, as the evidence was relevant and had significant probative value. Furthermore, the court held that the Magistrate was entitled to rely on parts of the central witness' evidence despite rejecting other parts, as the rejected parts did not form the basis of the conviction. The court found that the appeal was dismissed in relation to these grounds.

The appeal was granted in relation to Ground 1, and the conviction was quashed. However, the appeal was dismissed in relation to Grounds 2 and 3. The court did not make any orders in relation to the sentence, as the appeal was only in relation to the conviction.