R v Rachel Harper
[2014] ACTSC 51
•18 March 2014
R v RACHEL HARPER
[2014] ACTSC 51 (18 March 2014)
CRIMINAL LAW – judge alone trial – assault occasioning actual bodily harm – s 24 Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) – passenger assault on taxi driver – dispute over payment – accused accepts assault occurred
CRIMINAL LAW – judge alone trial – attempted robbery with an offensive weapon – s 310 Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) – passenger assault on taxi driver – accused’s explanation cannot be rejected
Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), ss 24, 26, 282
Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), ss 44, 310, 323
Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT), s 68D
EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT
No. SCC 157 of 2013
Judge: Burns J
Supreme Court of the ACT
Date: 18 March 2014
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE ) No. SCC 157 of 2013
)
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY )
BETWEEN: REGINA
v
AND:RACHEL HARPER
ORDER
Judge:Burns J
Date:18 March 2014
Place:Canberra
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
The accused be found guilty of the first count on the indictment.
The accused be found not guilty of the second count on the indictment.
The Court take jurisdiction with respect to Magistrate Court matters 2794 of 2013 and 4411 of 2013.
The accused be found not guilty with respect to charge 4411 of 2013.
The accused be found guilty with respect to charge 2794 of 2013.
The accused, Rachel Harper, is charged with two counts. The first alleges that on 9 March 2013, she assaulted Sukhjeet Singh and thereby occasioned to him actual bodily harm (s 24 Crimes Act 1900 (ACT)). The second count alleges that on the same date, she attempted to commit the offence of robbery and at the time had an offensive weapon with her (s 310 by virtue of s 44 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT)).
I will deal firstly with the second count, that of attempting to commit aggravated robbery. The Crown case, with respect to that charge, rests almost entirely upon the evidence given by Sukhjeet Singh. I thought Mr Singh was a good witness and I saw no reason to disbelieve what he said.
There was evidence given by a number of witnesses who heard Mr Singh calling for help and who made observations of what had occurred at about 9.30 pm on 9 March last year from nearby premises. Certainly based upon that evidence, if I could be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that events had occurred in the way as described by Mr Singh, the Crown case would be made out.
However, the accused has given evidence. I note that she was not obliged to do so because she is not under any onus to prove anything in this trial. She gave evidence of a version of events which, in my opinion, explains all of the objective evidence that has been presented by the Crown and also explains those things that were seen and heard by the witnesses other than Mr Singh.
In my opinion, there was little reason to doubt what the accused said about what had happened that evening. She agreed that she had lied to the police but, of course, at that time she was not on oath. She was on oath when she gave her evidence before me today and there was no reason that I could put my finger on to reject the version of events that she has given in her testimony. As the onus is on the Crown to prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt, in the circumstances of this case, I would have to be satisfied that I could reject the version of events given by the accused before I could find her guilty. I find that I cannot reject that version of events to the requisite standard. I have some doubt in my mind as to precisely what happened on 9 March last year and, in particular, whether the accused did make any demand of Mr Singh for his money and his phone in the way in which he alleged. As such, I will enter a verdict of not guilty with respect to the second count.
I now turn to the first count, that of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The accused admitted in the course of her evidence that she had punched Mr Singh whilst he was seated in the driver’s seat of his taxi. She did so because she was angry. There was no suggestion of self-defence raised by the accused with respect to that action.
I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the punch which was delivered by the accused struck Mr Singh to the area of his nose and mouth and caused bruising and also bleeding to his nose and mouth area. I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that that constitutes actual bodily harm.
It has been accepted on behalf of the accused by her counsel, Mr Davies, and properly so, that what she did constitutes an assault. I am satisfied to the requisite standard that the accused assaulted Sukhjeet Singh and thereby occasioned to him actual bodily harm and as such I find her guilty of the first count on the indictment.
There are three related summary only matters in the Magistrates Court. Both parties have invited me to seize jurisdiction in relation to those matters under s 68D of the Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT).The first in the series is charge number 2793 of 2013. That is a charge of common assault (s 26 Crimes Act 1900 (ACT)) and that was intended as a back up charge to the offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm in respect of which I have made a finding of guilty. Both parties have invited me to seize jurisdiction and dismiss that charge given my finding of guilt on the first count.
However, that charge would have been an alternative count to count one if it had been on the indictment, in which case the jury would not have been asked to return a verdict on it. I do not think I can dismiss it. If I can suggest, the most appropriate course is to leave it in the Magistrates Court and for the Crown to simply withdraw it. The second in the series is a possession of a knife charge (s 282 Crimes Act 1900 (ACT)), which is charge 2794 of 2013.
Finally, there is a charge of making off without payment (s 323 Criminal Code 2002 (ACT)), which is charge 4411 of 2013. I will take jurisdiction with respect to Magistrate Court matters 2794 of 2013 and 4411 of 2013.
With respect to charge 4411 of 2013, I find the accused not guilty and I make a finding of guilt with respect to charge 2794 of 2013.
I certify that the preceding twelve (12) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of his Honour, Justice Burns.
Associate:
Date: 10 April 2014
Counsel for the Crown: Ms A Begley
Solicitor for the Crown: ACT Director of Public Prosecutions
Counsel for the Accused A Kelly: Mr R Davies
Solicitor for the Accused A Kelly: Legal Aid ACT
Date of Hearing: 17-18 March 2014
Date of Judgment: 18 March 2014
0
0
3