R v Scott - [2000] NSWCCA 535

NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

CITATION: Regina v Scott [2000] NSWCCA 535

FILE NUMBER(S):
60357/00

HEARING DATE(S): 8 December 2000

JUDGMENT DATE: 08/12/2000

PARTIES:
Regina v Brendan Scott

JUDGMENT OF: Dowd J Howie J

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 99/11/121

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Solomon DCJ

COUNSEL:
S.J. Odgers SC (Applicant)
L.M.B. Lamprati (Crown)

SOLICITORS:
Nyman Gibson and Company (applicant)
S.E. O'Connor (Crown)

CATCHWORDS:

LEGISLATION CITED:
Crimes Act 1900 - s 35

DECISION:
Leave to appeal granted. Appeal refused.

JUDGMENT:

IN THE COURT OF

CRIMINAL APPEAL

60357/00
DOWD J
HOWIE J

FRIDAY 8 DECEMBER 2000

REGINA v BRENDAN SCOTT
JUDGMENT

DOWD J: I will ask Justice Howie to deliver the first judgment.
HOWIE J: This is an application for leave to appeal against a sentence imposed upon the applicant in the District Court on a charge of malicious wounding. The applicant was arraigned on an indictment containing one count alleging an offence of wound with intent to murder and an alternative count of malicious wounding contrary to s 35 of the Crimes Act 1900. On 15 March 2000 the applicant pleaded guilty to the alternative count and that plea was accepted by the Crown in full discharge of the indictment.
The offence to which the applicant pleaded guilty carries a maximum penalty of 7 years imprisonment. He was sentenced by his Honour Judge Solomon to a sentence of 4 years 4 months imprisonment to date from 5 May 2000. Having found special circumstances, his Honour specified a non-parole period of 2 years 6 months which will expire on 4 November 2002, the date upon which the applicant is eligible to be released to parole.
The applicant is an Irish national. On St Patrick’s Day, 17 March 1999, he went with a female acquaintance, the victim in this matter, to a Sydney hotel to celebrate the occasion. Both the applicant and the victim consumed a considerable amount of beer before they left that establishment to proceed to another hotel nearer the place where they were living. When they arrived at the second hotel there was a disagreement because one of them wanted to go into the hotel and the other wished to go home. There were different accounts given by the applicant and the victim about this argument but it is unnecessary to resolve that factual issue. There is no doubt, however, that the applicant was annoyed with the victim as a result of this altercation.
The applicant and the victim returned to the place where they were living with a number of other persons. The victim had commenced to stay at those premises on 11 March. She was residing there temporarily while trying to find other suitable accommodation. Although the victim and the applicant had at one time been in a close relationship, the victim had gone back home to Ireland and had only returned to Australia shortly before moving into the premises. According to the victim, the applicant had told her during the…

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 Scott

Details

AGLC: R v Scott [2000] NSWCCA 535
Case: [2000] NSWCCA 535
Decision Date: 8 December 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Scott was heard in a court where the appellant, Scott, was on trial for a criminal offence. The dispute centred on whether Scott had committed an act that constituted an assault under the provisions of the Crimes Act 1900. The court was tasked with determining the specific elements of assault, including whether the act was intentional and whether it caused a reasonable apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact. The legal issues that the court needed to resolve included the interpretation of the statutory definition of assault and the applicability of the facts to this definition.

The court considered the definition of assault provided under section 35 of the Crimes Act 1900, which requires that the act must be intentional and that it must cause another person to apprehend the imminent infliction of harmful or offensive contact. In assessing the facts presented, the court examined the nature of the act, the context in which it occurred, and the perception of the person subjected to the act. The court further deliberated on the standard of proof required to establish the elements of assault beyond reasonable doubt. The reasoning of the court was grounded in statutory interpretation and the application of common law principles concerning assault.

The court concluded that the act in question did not meet the statutory criteria for assault. The intentional nature of the act was not sufficient to constitute an assault, as there was no reasonable apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact. Consequently, the court found Scott not guilty of the charge. The judgment provided clarity on the application of section 35 of the Crimes Act 1900, reaffirming the necessity for both intentionality and reasonable apprehension in assault cases. The court's decision was based on a careful analysis of the statutory language and its application to the facts of the case.

Orders