Rainbow v The King - [2024] NSWDC 632

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Rainbow v R [2024] NSWDC 632
Hearing dates: 30 July 2024
Date of orders: 6 August 2024
Decision date: 06 August 2024
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: D Barrow SC DCJ
Decision:
The appellant’s conviction appeal is allowed.
The convictions for the charges of Hinder Police in the Execution of Duty and Assault Police in the Execution of Duty are quashed.
In lieu, the appellant is not guilty regarding both charges.

Catchwords:
CRIME - Criminal law and procedure – appeal from the Local Court to the District Court – all grounds – Conviction appeal - Hinder Police in Execution of Duty and Assault Police in Execution of Duty – whether police officer was acting in his duty – Conviction appeal allowed – Appellant not guilty

Legislation Cited:
Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002
Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001
Crimes Act 1900

Cases Cited:
Lunney v DPP [2021] NSWCA 186
McNab v DPP (NSW) 2021 106 NSWLR 430
R v Wong [2022] NSWDC 257
R v King (1993) 118 ALR 596
Halliday v Neville [1984] HCA 80, 155 CLR 1
Entick v Carrington (1765) 19 St Tr 1029
Great Central Railway Co v Bates (1921) 3 KB 578

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Director of Public Prosecutions
Appellant (Ms Rainbow)
Representation:
For the Director of Public Prosecutions:
Ms N Breward, Solicitor
For the appellant:
Mr J Fahey, Solicitor

File Number(s): 2023/00292111
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

Local Court

Jurisdiction:

Grafton

Date of Decision:

2 May 2024

Before:

Magistrate R Prowse

File Number(s):

2023/00292111

JUDGMENT

Appeal against conviction

Ms Rainbow, who I will call “the appellant”, was convicted on 2 May 2024 at the Grafton Local Court of the following offences:

hindering a police officer in the execution of his duty, contrary to s60(1AA) of the Crimes Act

assaulting a police officer in the execution of his duty, contrary to s60(1) of the Crimes Act

The appellant was convicted and fined $1000 for the hindering offence. She was convicted without further penalty for the assault police officer offence.

Conviction appeals from the Local to the District Court

Before I turn to the evidence it is important to say something about the nature of conviction appeals.
Conviction appeals from the Local Court to the District Court are made pursuant to Pt 3 Div 1 of the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 (“Appeal and Review Act”). This appeal is brought pursuant to s 18 of the Appeal and Review Act, which provides that the appeal is to be conducted as a rehearing on the basis of the evidence in the original Local Court proceedings.
There have been a number of recent intermediate decisions on the approach to be taken by the Court hearing the appeal from the Local Court: Lunney v DPP [2021] NSWCA 186 and McNab v DPP (NSW) 2021 106 NSWLR 430 (McNab) as were recently helpfully summarised by Abadee DCJ in R v Wong [2022] NSWDC 257 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 Rainbow v The King

Details

AGLC: Rainbow v The King [2024] NSWDC 632
Case: [2024] NSWDC 632
Decision Date: 06 August 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Rainbow v The King involved an appeal by the appellant against his conviction in the Local Court. The appellant was charged with hindering police in the execution of duty and assaulting police in the execution of duty. The District Court heard the appeal on all grounds, focusing on whether the police officer was acting in their duty at the time of the alleged offences. The central issue was whether the police officer was performing their duty, which was pivotal in determining the validity of the charges against the appellant.

The court examined whether the police officer was acting within the scope of their duties when the alleged offences occurred. It was crucial to establish that the officer was indeed executing their duty to validate the charges of hindering and assaulting police in the execution of duty. The court meticulously reviewed the circumstances surrounding the incident, the actions of the police officer, and the appellant's conduct. The appellant's legal team argued that the police officer was not acting in their official capacity, thereby rendering the charges invalid. The court agreed, finding that the police officer's actions did not meet the requisite criteria to be considered as executing their duty.

As a result, the District Court allowed the appellant's conviction appeal. The convictions for hindering police in the execution of duty and assaulting police in the execution of duty were quashed. The court ruled that the appellant was not guilty of these charges, given the police officer was not acting in their official capacity at the time of the incident. The court's decision brought an end to the appellant's legal troubles regarding these charges, marking a significant outcome in the appeal process.

Orders

Orders of the court

The appellant’s conviction appeal is allowed.

The convictions for the charges of Hinder Police in the Execution of Duty and Assault Police in the Execution of Duty are quashed.

In lieu, the appellant is not guilty regarding both charges.

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	Rainbow v R [2024] NSWDC 632
Hearing dates:	30 July 2024
Date of orders:	6 August 2024
Decision date:	06 August 2024
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	D Barrow SC DCJ
Decision:	The appellant’s conviction appeal is allowed. The convictions for the charges of Hinder Police in the Execution of Duty and Assault Police in the Execution of Duty are quashed. In lieu, the appellant is not guilty regarding both charges.
Catchwords:	CRIME - Criminal law and procedure – appeal from the Local Court to the District Court – all grounds – Conviction appeal - Hinder Police in Execution of Duty and Assault Police in Execution of Duty – whether police officer was acting in his duty – Conviction appeal allowed – Appellant not guilty
Legislation Cited:	Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 Crimes Act 1900
Cases Cited:	Lunney v DPP [2021] NSWCA 186 McNab v DPP (NSW) 2021 106 NSWLR 430 R v Wong [2022] NSWDC 257 R v King (1993) 118 ALR 596 Halliday v Neville [1984] HCA 80, 155 CLR 1 Entick v Carrington (1765) 19 St Tr 1029 Great Central Railway Co v Bates (1921) 3 KB 578
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Director of Public Prosecutions Appellant (Ms Rainbow)
Representation:	For the Director of Public Prosecutions: Ms N Breward, Solicitor For the appellant: Mr J Fahey, Solicitor
File Number(s):	2023/00292111
Decision under appeal	Court or tribunal: Local Court Jurisdiction: Grafton Date of Decision: 2 May 2024 Before: Magistrate R Prowse File Number(s): 2023/00292111