R v Scott

Case [2023] NSWDC 271

District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Scott [2023] NSWDC 271
Hearing dates: 17, 18 July 2023
Date of orders: 21 July 2023
Decision date: 21 July 2023
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Abadee DCJ
Decision:

See paragraph 228

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL LAW – appeals and reviews – appeals against Local Court convictions – domestic violence and related offences – whether date of commission for one alleged offence was adopted by the parties as a material element of the offence

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act1900 (NSW) ss 59, 61, 428

Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 (NSW) s 18

Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW) ss 5, 7, 13

Criminal Procedure Act1986 (NSW) s 16

Cases Cited:

Fantakis v R [2023] NSWCCA 3

Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118

Lunneyv DPP (2021) 105 NSWLR 236

McIlwraith v R [2017] NSWCCA 13

McNab v DPP (NSW) (2021) 106 NSWLR 430

R v Kennedy (2000) 118 A Crim R 34

R v Stringer (2000) 116 A Crim R 198

Weissensteiner v The Queen (1993) 178 CLR 217

WGC v The Queen (2007) 233 CLR 66

Texts Cited:

Nil

Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Mr C Scott (appellant)
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP)
Representation: Mr S Howell (Counsel) for the appellant
Ms L Robeau (solicitor) for the Crown
File Number(s): 2022/00003858
2022/00003695
Publication restriction: Non-publication of witness’s name in accordance with s 15A(1) of the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987
 Decision under appeal 
Court or tribunal:
Local Court of NSW
Jurisdiction:
Local Court of NSW
Date of Decision:
7 October 2022
Before:
Magistrate Covington
File Number(s):
2022/00003858
2022/00003695

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Background

  1. After a hearing in the Local Court (Downing Centre) stretched over 4 (non-continuous) days, and after reserving his verdicts (on 15 September 2022), on 7 October 2022 Magistrate Covington found Mr Curtis Scott (the ‘appellant’) guilty of the following offences against Tay-Leiha Clark (the ‘complainant’):

  1. Seq 3: assault occasioning actual bodily harm to the complainant to on 28 October 2018 (between 12:01am and 5:00am) at Sylvania, contrary to s 59(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW);

  2. Seq 7: common assault against the complainant on 28 December 2018, at Lake Conjola, contrary to s 61 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)

  3. Seq 8: intimidating the complainant on 31 March 2019, at Sylvania with the intent to cause her physical or mental harm, contrary to s 13(1) of the Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW).

  1. On the same day, the Magistrate dismissed other charges (Sequences 1 & 9; 6). As a consequence of conviction for sequence 3, there was no need for the Magistrate to determine sequence 2, which was an alternative charge. Earlier, on 24 August 2022, the Magistrate found that there was no case to answer on sequences 4 and 10 and those charges were dismissed.

  2. The appellant was sentenced on 18 November 2022.

  3. Initially, the appellant brought an all grounds appeal from the convictions and sentence but by his Counsel’s…

Continue reading R v Scott

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Scott [2023] NSWDC 271
Case
[2023] NSWDC 271
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Scott involved the appellant, Scott, who was convicted in the Local Court of New South Wales of domestic violence and related offences. The primary issue in the appeal was the accuracy of the date on which one of the alleged offences was committed. The respondent, the Crown, argued that the date was a material element of the offence, while Scott contended otherwise. The appeal was heard by the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal, which was required to determine whether the parties had adopted the date of commission as a material element during the trial.

The court examined the trial proceedings to ascertain whether the parties had indeed adopted the date of commission as a material element of the offence. It found that the issue of the date of commission was not explicitly addressed by the parties during the trial. The court noted that although the date was not challenged, it was not specifically agreed upon by the parties as a material element. The court held that the absence of such an agreement meant that the date of commission could not be considered a material element of the offence.

As a result of this finding, the court quashed the conviction on the count that relied on the date of commission. The court emphasised that the absence of an explicit agreement on the date of commission as a material element required the quashing of the conviction. The court did not find it necessary to address the other counts of the appeal, as the decision on the date of commission was determinative of the appeal's outcome. The appeal was otherwise dismissed, and no further orders were made.

Orders

Orders of the court

See paragraph 228

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.