District Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: R v Joshua Goddard [2013] NSWDC 204 Hearing dates: 10 October 2013 Decision date: 18 October 2013 Before: Mahony SC DCJ Decision: Appeal upheld; for orders see [41]
Catchwords: S 60(1) Crimes Act; "intimidates police officer" Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 Cases Cited: Charara v R [2006] NSW CCA 244
R v Manton (2002) 132 AcrimR 249; (2002) NSWCCA 316
Linley v Rutter [1981] QB128
Woodley v Boyd [2001] NSWCA 35
State of New South Wales v Nominal Defendant [2009] NSWCA 225
Meller v Low (2000) 48 NSWLR 517
Vella v Director of Public Prosecutions (2005) NSWSC 97
R v Manton [2002] NSWCCA 316Category: Principal judgment Parties: Joshua Goddard - Appellant
Director of Public Prosecution - RespondentRepresentation: Ms J Sanders - Appellant
Mr A Kiru - Crown
File Number(s): 12/287685 Publication restriction: Nil
Judgment
Introduction
The charge the subject to this appeal is as follows:
"Intimidate Police Officer in execution of duty without causing actual bodily harm.
Between 12.05am and 12.10am on 16 September 2012 at Gymea, did attempt to intimidate a police officer while the said Leading Senior Constable Inglis was executing his duty."
Crimes Act 1900 S 60 (1)
"(1) A person who assaults, throws a missile at, stalks, harasses or intimidates a police officer while in the execution of the officer's duty, although no actual bodily harm is occasioned to the officer, is liable to imprisonment for 5 years".
The penalty imposed by the learned Magistrate in respect of the offence was six months imprisonment which was backdated and had been already served.
The Appeal
The appeal was heard on 10 October 2013. At that time the appellant was in custody in respect of other matters. He was to be released on parole on 11 October 2013. An order had been previously made that he appear on the appeal by way of a video link and he did so for part of the appeal. The appellant did not apply to give any further evidence and the video link was terminated at his request.
The maximum penalty imposed in respect of the matter in the jurisdiction of the Local Court was two years imprisonment. The maximum penalty provided by statute in respect of the offence was 5 years imprisonment.
The appeal is by way of a re-hearing based on the transcript of evidence before the learned Magistrate. In determining the appeal I am to apply the principles governing appeals from a Judge sitting without a jury, and I am to form my own judgment of the facts on the basis of the transcript evidence, recognising the advantage enjoyed by the Magistrate who saw and heard the witnesses called in the lower court - see Charara v R [2006] NSWCCA 244 per Mason P at [18]. I have also had regard to the exhibits tendered in the Local Court and I have read the remarks of Magistrate Bartley in his judgment dated 21 June 2013.
I am mindful of…
Continue reading R v Joshua Goddard
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Joshua Goddard [2013] NSWDC 204
- Case
- [2013] NSWDC 204
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue for the court was whether the evidence was sufficient to establish that the defendant had intimidated a police officer as required by the statute. The court had to examine the definition of "intimidates" and whether the trial judge correctly applied this definition to the facts of the case. Furthermore, the court needed to determine whether the prosecution had proven beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant's actions caused the police officer to fear for their safety, a crucial element of the offence.
The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge had erred in the way the statutory definition of "intimidates" was applied. The court held that the definition required more than just causing fear; it needed to be shown that the defendant's conduct was of such a nature that it would cause a reasonable police officer to fear for their safety. The evidence presented did not sufficiently establish this element, leading the court to conclude that the conviction could not stand. Consequently, the appeal was upheld, and the conviction was quashed. The court ordered that the matter be remitted to the trial court for re-sentencing, considering the nature of the offence and the facts as found by the jury.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal upheld; for orders see [41]
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.