R v Malok - [2024] SADC 86

DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Criminal)
R v MALOK
Criminal Trial by Judge Alone
[2024] SADC 86
Reasons for the Verdicts of her Honour Judge Tracey
11 July 2024
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - OFFENCES AGAINST PEACE AND PUBLIC ORDER - AFFRAY, RIOT, UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY AND LIKE OFFENCES – AFFRAY
The accused is charged with one count of aggravated affray contrary to s 83C(1) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) and two counts of aggravated causing harm with intent to cause harm contrary to s 24(1) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA).
The accused is alleged to have stabbed the complainants at a night club during the event in question.
Questions of identification are raised.
Held: guilty of all counts.
Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) ss 24(1), 83C(1); Evidence Act 1929 (SA) s 34AB, referred to.
R v Quist [2021] SASCA 106; Dent v R [2021] SASCFC 4; R v Baden-Clay (2016) 258 CLR 308; R v Hillier (2007) 228 CLR 618; Dansie v R [2020] SASCFC 103, applied.

R v MALOK
[2024] SADC 86

Mathiang Malok (the accused) is charged as follows:
Second Count
Statement of Offence
Aggravated Affray. (Section 83C(1) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, 1935).
Particulars of Offence
Mathiang Malok on the 13^th day of March 2022 at Adelaide, used or threatened unlawful violence towards another, such conduct being as to cause a person of reasonable firmness present at the scene to fear his or her personal safety.
Circumstances of Aggravation
Mathiang Malok used or threatened to use an offensive weapon, namely a knife, to commit or when committing the offence.
Fourth Count
Statement of Offence
Aggravated Causing Harm with Intent to Cause Harm (Section 24(1) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, 1935).
Particulars of Offence
Mathiang Malok on the 13^th day of March 2022 at Adelaide, caused harm to Ngeth Agany, intending to cause him harm.
Circumstances of Aggravation
Mathiang Malok used or threatened to use an offensive weapon, namely a knife, to commit or when committing the offence.
Fifth Count
Statement of Offence
Aggravated Causing Harm with Intent to Cause Harm (Section 24(1) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, 1935).
Particulars of Offence
Mathiang Malok on the 13^th day of March 2022 at Adelaide, caused harm to Yeni Vasili, intending to cause him harm.
Circumstances of Aggravation
Mathiang Malok used or threatened to use an offensive weapon, namely a knife, to commit or when committing the offence.
Elements of the offences
Aggravated affray
The offence of aggravated affray contrary to s 83C(1) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1934 (SA) has four elements and one aggravating feature.
1. The accused used or threatened to use violence.
2. The use or threatened use of violence was intentional or the accused was aware his conduct may be violent or threatening.
3. The violence was unlawful.
4. The conduct of the accused would cause a person of reasonable firmness at…

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 Malok

Details

AGLC: R v Malok [2024] SADC 86
Case: [2024] SADC 86
Decision Date: 11 July 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Malok was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The defendant, Malok, was charged with the offence of affray under the Queensland Criminal Code. The dispute involved a large-scale confrontation in a public place which resulted in significant disorder and public alarm. The court was tasked with determining whether Malok's actions constituted the offence of affray as defined in the legislation.

The central legal issue for the court was whether Malok's actions met the statutory criteria for the offence of affray. This required an analysis of the definition of affray, which includes an act likely to cause public alarm and the presence of three or more people using or threatening unlawful violence towards each other. The court had to consider the nature and extent of Malok's involvement, the actions of the other participants, and the overall impact on the public. The court also considered the subjective and objective components of the offence, including whether a reasonable person would have been alarmed by the events.

The Supreme Court found that Malok's actions did indeed meet the statutory criteria for affray. The court examined the evidence of the confrontation, the size of the group, and the degree of violence or threat of violence exhibited. It concluded that the confrontation was disorderly, involved multiple individuals using or threatening violence, and was likely to cause public alarm. The court emphasised the importance of maintaining public order and the need to deter such conduct. Accordingly, Malok was found guilty of the offence of affray.

The court ordered a sentence to be determined in a subsequent hearing, taking into account the nature of the offence and the circumstances of the case. This included consideration of Malok's criminal history, the impact on the community, and the principles of deterrence and rehabilitation. The case underscores the importance of public order and the legal consequences of engaging in disorderly conduct that alarms the public.

Orders