R v Ramalingam - [2011] ACTSC 86

THE QUEEN v SHANKAR RAMALINGAM
[2011] ACTSC 86 (25 May 2011)
CRIMINAL LAW – trial by judge alone – common assault – accused found guilty.
CRIMINAL LAW – particular offences – offences against the person – common assault – involvement in a fight – whether an assault.
CRIMINAL LAW – particular offences – offences against the person – common assault – whether accidental or not – whether as part of a fight implies consent.
Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), s 26
Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1991 (ACT), Pt 4, ss 43, 46
Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT), s 68C
Fleming v The Queen (1998) 197 CLR 250
R v DM [2010] ACTSC 137
R v Mulcahy [2010] ACTSC 98
Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1969] 1 QB 439
Attorney-General’s Reference (No 6 of 1980) [1981] 2 All ER 1057
R v Bacash [1981] VR 923
R v Latimer (1886) 17 QBD 359
No. SCC 354 of 2008
Judge:             Refshauge J
Supreme Court of the ACT
Date:              25 May 2011
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE     )
  )          No. SCC 354 of 2008
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY )
THE QUEEN
v
SHANKAR RAMALINGAM

ORDER
Judge:  Refshauge J
Date:  25 May 2011
Place:  Canberra
THE COURT FINDS THAT:
1.          On the first count on the indictment, the accused is guilty.

2. On the second count on the indictment, the accused is guilty.

3. On the third count on the indictment, the accused is guilty.

4. On the fourth count on the indictment, the accused is guilty.

1. The accused, Shankar Ramalingam, faces four charges which arise from the events at his home with his family on 8 July 2008.

2. The indictment, which sets out the charges, pleaded the following counts:

FIRST COUNT: ... THAT, on 8 July 2008 at Canberra in the Australian Capital Territory, he assaulted Vinoshan Shankar.

SECOND COUNT: ... THAT, on 8 July 2008, ... he assaulted Ranjina Shankar.

THIRD COUNT: ... THAT, on 8 July 2008, ... he assaulted Vinoshan Shankar.

FOURTH COUNT: ... THAT, on 8 July 2008, ... he assaulted Ranjina Shankar.

3. These are proceedings for offences under s 26 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) (the Crimes Act). As such, they are violent offences for the purposes of Pt 4 of the Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1991 (ACT) (the Miscellaneous Provisions Act). Under s 43 (within Div 4.3) of the latter Act, the evidence of a complainant must be given by audiovisual link from another place than the courtroom unless the court otherwise orders. I was not asked to make such an order in respect of any complainant and they did give evidence in this way.

Trial by Judge Alone

4. Before the court first allocated a date for the trial of Mr Ramalingam, he made an election for trial by judge alone.

5. Under s 68C of the Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT) (the Supreme Court Act), a judge, who, without a jury, tries proceedings for the prosecution of a person…

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 Ramalingam

Details

AGLC: R v Ramalingam [2011] ACTSC 86
Case: [2011] ACTSC 86
Decision Date: 25 May 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of R v Ramalingam involved the accused being charged with multiple counts of common assault. The trial was conducted before a judge alone in the Magistrates' Court of Victoria. The accused was found guilty on all counts, and the court was required to determine the legal validity of the convictions.

The primary legal issues the court had to address were whether the actions of the accused constituted a common assault, and if so, whether these actions were accidental or consensual in the context of a fight. The court had to carefully examine the evidence to determine the nature of the altercation and the intent behind the accused's actions. It was also necessary to assess whether the involvement in a fight implied consent to the assault.

In its reasoning, the court meticulously analysed the facts presented, including the circumstances leading up to the altercation and the actions taken by the accused. The court concluded that the accused's actions amounted to common assault, as they involved the intentional application of force to another person. The court found that the nature of the fight did not negate the accused's responsibility for their actions, as the involvement in a fight did not inherently imply consent to being assaulted. The court was satisfied that the accused had engaged in actions that constituted common assault on all counts.

The final orders of the court were that the accused was found guilty on all counts of common assault as charged.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. On the first count on the indictment, the accused is guilty.

2. On the second count on the indictment, the accused is guilty.

3. On the third count on the indictment, the accused is guilty.

4. On the fourth count on the indictment, the accused is guilty.

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.