R v Forsyth

[2013] ACTSC 174

R v ADAM TONY FORSYTH 
[2013] ACTSC 174 (30 August 2013)

CRIMINAL LAW – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – Offences Against the Person – assault occasioning actual bodily harm – accused claimed to have acted in self-defence – accused did not believe that it was necessary to act as he did in self-defence – any belief that it was necessary in self-defence to act as the accused did was not reasonable – self-defence excluded beyond reasonable doubt by evidence accepted by court – accused found guilty of assault occasioning actual bodily harm.

Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) s 41(1)(c)

Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) s 24
Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT) s 68C

Brown v. United States of America (1920) 256 U.S 335 [65 Law Ed. 961]

Dal Cortivov The Queen [2010] ACTCA 14

Dziduchv The Queen (1990) 47 A Crim R 378

Fleming v R (1998) 197 CLR 250

Mulcahy v The Queen [2012] ACTCA 3

R v Howe (1958) 100 CLR 448

Zecevic v DPP (1987) 162 CLR 645

No. SCC 437 of 2008

Judge:             Penfold J
Supreme Court of the ACT

Date:              30 August 2013

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE     )
  )          No. SCC 437 of 2008
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY )

R  

v

ADAM TONY FORSYTH               

ORDER

Judge:  Penfold J
Date:  30 August 2013
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. On the charge that on 19 November 2007 Adam Tony Forsyth assaulted Stephen Patafta and thereby occasioned actual bodily harm to him – a verdict of guilty be entered.

Introduction

1. The accused Adam Tony Forsyth was arraigned before me on one charge of assaulting Stephen Patafta on 19 November 2007 and thereby occasioning actual bodily harm under s 24 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT).

1. The accused pleaded not guilty.

Trial by judge alone

Election

1. The accused elected to be tried by judge alone.

Procedures for trial

1. Section 68C of the Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT) specifies the procedures to be followed for a trial by judge alone. In summary:

(a)the judge can make any findings of guilt that could have been made by a jury, and those findings have the same effect as jury verdicts;

(b)the judge must provide a judgment setting out the principles of law he or she applied and the findings of fact he or she relied on (this requirement has been interpreted as requiring the judge to set out also the reasoning process linking the law and the facts, and a justification for the verdict, Fleming v R (1998) 197 CLR 250); and

(c)the judge must take into account any directions, warnings and comments that would, under a Territory law, have had to be given or made to a jury in the case.  

1. In a judge-alone trial the judge must give herself certain directions equivalent to those that would be given to a jury.  Those directions relate to the presumption of innocence, the burden of proof generally and the way evidence should be dealt with, and they are set out in the…