Case Title:	R v Graham
Citation:	[2017] ACTSC 267
Hearing Dates:	6, 7, 8 September 2017
DecisionDate:	15 September 2017
Before:	Mossop J
Decision:	See [120]–[121]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Trial – trial by judge alone – verdict – hindering a public official – common assault – failure to wear a helmet – failure to stop vehicle when requested by police – failure to stop vehicle when signalled by police – driving on a path – riding a motor vehicle without consent – unlicensed rider – failure to stop after an accident causing injury – aggravated dangerous driving CRIMINAL LAW – DRIVING OFFENCES – Offences Relating to the Administration of Justice – whether accused was person seen by police to be riding motorcycle –– meaning of the word “likely” in s 27(3)(c) of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) – whether riding a motorcycle at a person likely to endanger human life or cause grievous bodily harm – whether the activation of police lights and sirens a “request or signal” to stop a vehicle – meaning of the word “knowingly” in s 16 of the Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Act 1999 (ACT)
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), ss 26, 27(4) Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), ss 318(2), 361(1), Evidence Act 2011 (ACT), ss 38, 60, 91 Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT), s 90B Road Transport Act 2013 (NSW), s 146 Road Transport (Driver Licensing) Act 1999 (ACT), s 31(1) Road Transport (General) Act 1999 (ACT), s 72(1)(a) Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Act 1999 (ACT), ss 7(1), 15, 16 Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Regulation 2000 (ACT), ss 6, 109(2) Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT), ss 68B, 68D Australian Road Rules, rr 270(1)(a), 288(1), 289 Minister for Urban Services, Declaration Of Areas to be Defined as Road Related Areas, DI2000-341
Cases Cited:	Boughey v The Queen (1986) 161 CLR 10 Leonard v Morris (1975) 10 SASR 528 McElholum v Hughes [2015] ACTSC 78 McElholum v Hughes [2016] ACTCA 37 Pangallo v Smith [2015] ACTSC 313 R v Connors (No 2) [2016] ACTSC 333 R v DM [2010] ACTSC 137 R v Galvin (1998)147 FLR 182 R v Hamilton (1993) 66 A Crim R 575 R v Mulcahy [2010] ACTSC 98 R v O’Neill [2004] ACTSC 64 Taufahema v R [2006] NSWCCA 152; 162 A Crim R 152
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Troy Graham (Accused)
Representation:	Counsel S Naidu (Crown) P Burgoyne-Scutts (Accused)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Legal Aid ACT (Accused)
File Numbers:	SCC 294 of 2016 SCC 295 of 2016

MOSSOP J:

Introduction

This is a trial by judge alone conducted pursuant to s 68B of the Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT) after the accused, Troy Graham, signed an election on 5 April 2017 to be tried by a judge alone. The accused is charged with using an offensive weapon likely to endanger human life or cause…

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 Graham

Details

AGLC: R v Graham [2017] ACTSC 267
Case: [2017] ACTSC 267
Decision Date: 15 September 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Graham involved the accused, Graham, who faced multiple charges stemming from a series of incidents involving the use of a motorcycle. The incidents occurred in the ACT and the trial was conducted before a judge sitting alone. The charges against Graham included hindering a public official, common assault, failure to wear a helmet, failure to stop a vehicle when requested by police, failure to stop when signalled by police, driving on a path, riding a motor vehicle without consent, failure to stop after an accident causing injury, and aggravated dangerous driving. The court was tasked with determining whether Graham was the person seen by police riding the motorcycle and whether his actions met the criteria for the specified offences under the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) and the Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Act 1999 (ACT).

The legal issues before the court involved the interpretation of certain statutory provisions. The court had to decide whether the term "likely" in s 27(3)(c) of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) meant that Graham's actions were likely to endanger human life or cause grievous bodily harm. Additionally, the court needed to determine whether the activation of police lights and sirens constituted a "request or signal" to stop a vehicle as defined in s 16 of the Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Act 1999 (ACT). Furthermore, the meaning of the word "knowingly" in this context was also a matter for judicial interpretation.

In examining the evidence, the court found that Graham's actions did indeed meet the criteria for the offences charged. The court concluded that the term "likely" in s 27(3)(c) of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) was satisfied by Graham's conduct, which posed a significant risk to public safety. The activation of police lights and sirens was deemed to be a clear request or signal to stop, aligning with the statutory definition in s 16 of the Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Act 1999 (ACT). The court further found that Graham acted knowingly in disregarding these requests and signals. Based on these findings, the court found Graham guilty on all charges.

The final orders of the court were detailed in paragraphs [120]–[121] of the judgment, outlining the specific sentences and penalties imposed on Graham for each of the convictions. The court's decision provided clarity on the interpretation of statutory terms and reinforced the importance of compliance with traffic laws and police directives.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [120]–[121]

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.

Citations

AGLC Citation

R v Graham [2017] ACTSC 267

Most Recent Citation

R v Graham (No 2) [2017] ACTSC 378

Cases citing this decision · 6 of 6 shown

R v MZ (No 3)
[2021] ACTSC 332 Para 1

…to. The fact that he did not give evidence does not affect the burden upon the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt: see R v Graham [2017] ACTSC 267; see also Droudis (No 14) at [59]-[61].…
R v Pikula
[2020] ACTSC 265 Para 1

…to. The fact that he did not give evidence does not affect the burden upon the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt: see R v Graham [2017] ACTSC 267; see also Droudis (No 14) at [59]-[61].…
R v Tang
[2019] ACTSC 4 Para 1

…to. The fact that he did not give evidence does not affect the burden upon the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt: see R v Graham [2017] ACTSC 267; see also Droudis (No 14) at [59]-[61].…
R v Johnstone
[2018] ACTSC 316 Para 1

…The principles that apply to a determination of this charge are those general principles relating to a criminal trial set out in R v Graham [2017] ACTSC 267; 325 FLR 21 at [8].…
Director of Public Prosecutions (ACT) v Graham
[2018] ACTCA 23

…Court/Tribunal: ACTSC Before: Mossop J Date of Decision: 15 September 2017 Case Title: R v Graham Citation: [2017] ACTSC 267 Court File Numbers: SCC 294 of 2016; SCC 295 of 2016…
R v Graham (No 2)
[2017] ACTSC 378 Para 1

…that offending conduct are recounted in the reasons I gave for my verdict (‘principal judgment’) and I will not repeat them here (see R v Graham [2017] ACTSC 267).…

View all 6 citing cases →

Cases cited in this decision · 9 of 9 shown

R v Connors (No 2)
[2016] ACTSC 333

…Morris (1975) 10 SASR 528 McElholum v Hughes [2015] ACTSC 78 McElholum v Hughes [2016] ACTCA 37 Pangallo v Smith [2015] ACTSC 313 R v Connors (No 2) [2016] ACTSC 333 R v DM [2010] ACTSC 137 R v Galvin (1998)147 FLR 182 R v Hamilton (1993) 66 A Crim R 575 R v Mulcahy [2010] ACTSC 98 R v O’Neill [2004] ACTSC 64 Tauf…
McElholum v Hughes
[2016] ACTCA 37 Para 1

…ght happen. Recklessness is sufficient intention to establish a common assault: McElholum v Hughes [2015] ACTSC 78 at [324]–[328]; appeal dismissed [2016] ACTCA 37 at [54]–[62]. Senior Constable Yates did not consent to the application of force. Therefore the accused is guilty of this offence.…
Pangallo v Smith
[2015] ACTSC 313 Para 1

…ints, relevant to provide a basis for the opinion, is also admissible to prove the fact that they were so taken: Evidence Act, s 60; Pangallo v Smith [2015] ACTSC 313 at [70].…
McElholum v Hughes
[2015] ACTSC 78 Para 1

…was about to do, but yet took the risk that that might happen. Recklessness is sufficient intention to establish a common assault: McElholum v Hughes [2015] ACTSC 78 at [324]–[328]; appeal dismissed [2016] ACTCA 37 at [54]–[62]. Senior Constable Yates did not consent to the application of force. Therefore the accu…
R v DM
[2010] ACTSC 137

…78 McElholum v Hughes [2016] ACTCA 37 Pangallo v Smith [2015] ACTSC 313 R v Connors (No 2) [2016] ACTSC 333 R v DM [2010] ACTSC 137 R v Galvin (1998)147 FLR 182 R v Hamilton (1993) 66 A Crim R 575 R v Mulcahy [2010] ACTSC 98 R v O’Neill [2004] ACTSC 64 Taufahema v R [2006] NSWCCA 152; 162 A Crim R 152…
R v Mulcahy
[2010] ACTSC 98 Para 1

…In R v Mulcahy [2010] ACTSC 98 at [13]–[24], Nield AJ, when conducting a judge alone trial, gave himself directions about his role. The directions were adopted by Refshauge J in R v DM [2010] ACTSC 137 at [9]. Nield AJ set out the directions as follows:…
Taufahema v The Queen
[2006] NSWCCA 152 Para 1

…ates from making an arrest or were an obstacle or impediment to him doing so and hence hindered him in the statutory sense: Taufahema v The Queen [2006] NSWCCA 152; 162 A Crim R 152 at 161–162; Leonard v Morris (1975) 10 SASR 528 at 531. In the circumstances there can be no doubt that the accused knew that Senior Co…
R v O'Neill
[2004] ACTSC 64 Para 1

…The interpretation that I have given the section is consistent with the interpretation apparently given to it by Connolly J in R v O’Neill [2004] ACTSC 64 although his Honour does not appear to have given detailed consideration to the issue.…
Boughey v the Queen
[1986] HCA 29 Para 1

…issue identified above is concerned, the word “likely” is liable to vary according to the context in which the word is used: Boughey v The Queen (1986) 161 CLR 10 at 20. When used in s 27 it should not, in my view, be interpreted as requiring proof on the balance of probabilities that the offensive weapon would end…

Legislation cited in this decision · 8

Evidence Act 2011 (ACT)
38, 60, 91 4 mentions (from Para 1)
Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Act 1999 (ACT)
15, 16, 7(1) 4 mentions (from Para 1)
Crimes Act 1900 (ACT)
26, 27(4) 3 mentions (from Para 1)
Road Transport (General) Act 1999 (ACT)
63), 72(1)(a) 3 mentions (from Para 1)
Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT)
68B, 68D 3 mentions (from Para 1)
Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT)
90B 2 mentions (from Para 1)
Road Transport (Driver Licensing) Act 1999 (ACT)
31(1) 2 mentions (from Para 1)
Road Transport Act 2013 (NSW)
146, 146) 2 mentions (from Para 1)