Randall-Sheals v Smith - [2025] TASSC 17

[2025] TASSC 17

COURT:	SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA
CITATION:	Randall-Sheals v Smith [2025] TASSC 17
PARTIES:	RANDALL-SHEALS, Bayli Brian
v
SMITH, Andrew
FILE NO:	1965/2024
DELIVERED ON:	27 March 2025
DELIVERED AT:	Launceston
HEARING DATE:	24 March 2025
JUDGMENT OF:	Pearce J
CATCHWORDS:

Criminal Law – General matters – Criminal liability and capacity – Defence matters – Defence of persons or property – Accused original aggressor – Force applied in response to lawful attempts to remove accused from premises – Claim of self-defence rejected.

Aust Dig Criminal Law [2089]

Viro v The Queen (1978) 141 CLR 88

Zecevic v Director of Public Prosecutions [1987] HCA 26 162 CLR 645

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:

Applicant: S Wright
Respondent: A Gillard

Solicitors:

Applicant: Stephen G Wright
Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment Number:	[2025] TASSC 17
Number of paragraphs:	36

Serial No 17/2025 File No 1965/2024

BAYLI BRIAN RANDALL-SHEALS v ANDREW SMITH

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

PEARCE J

27 March 2025

1             On 4 June 2024 the applicant was found guilty by a magistrate, Ms L Topfer, of common assault contrary to the Police Offences Act 1935, s 35. The complaint alleged that on 16 December 2022 the applicant unlawfully assaulted his former partner, Chelsey Walker, in her home, by grabbing her wrists, pinning her against the wall and kneeing her to the leg. The magistrate was not satisfied to the criminal standard that the applicant kneed Ms Walker. The applicant otherwise admitted that he intentionally applied force to Ms Walker by grabbing her wrists and pinning her to the wall, but claimed that he was acting in self-defence.
2             The magistrate found that, in the course of an argument with the applicant, the complainant pushed and hit the applicant. Nevertheless, the magistrate found the complaint proved. The substance and effect of her Honour's determination was that, in the circumstances she found to have occurred, it was lawful for the complainant to use reasonable force to remove the applicant from her home, and the applicant could not claim to have acted in self-defence in response. This motion challenges her Honour's conclusions on three grounds, respectively that the learned magistrate:

(a) erred in fact and in law in finding the complaint proven beyond reasonable doubt;
(b) erred in fact and in law in finding that the complainant, Ms Walker, was entitled to use force to remove the applicant from the premises; and
(c) erred in fact and in law in that the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant was not acting in self-defence.
3             The applicant correctly points out that the first ground adds nothing to the second and third grounds. The applicant also seeks an extension of time to file the motion to review. I think that the respondent's submission that an extension is not necessary is likely correct. The motion was filed after the finding of guilt but before the order convicting the applicant. However, the extension is not opposed. In the circumstances, nothing…

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 Randall-Sheals v Smith

Details

AGLC: Randall-Sheals v Smith [2025] TASSC 17
Case: [2025] TASSC 17
Decision Date: 27 March 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Randall-Sheals v Smith was a case heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The defendant, Randall-Sheals, was charged with assault after a physical altercation with Smith. The dispute centred on the circumstances leading to the assault and whether the defendant's actions were justified under the principles of self-defence or defence of property. The court had to determine whether Randall-Sheals was the initial aggressor and if his use of force was proportionate and lawful in response to Smith's attempts to remove him from the premises.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether Randall-Sheals could rely on self-defence or defence of property given that he was the initial aggressor and whether the force he used was proportionate to the circumstances. The court considered whether the defendant had an honest and reasonable belief that force was necessary to defend himself or his property, and if the force used was not excessive in the given context. The court also examined the principle that an original aggressor cannot claim self-defence if they are the first to use force in a situation.

The court held that Randall-Sheals was the initial aggressor and that his claim of self-defence was not valid. The court found that the force used by the defendant was not proportionate to the lawful actions of Smith, who was attempting to remove Randall-Sheals from the premises. The court concluded that the defendant's actions did not meet the legal standards required to justify self-defence or defence of property, and therefore, the defendant was liable for the assault charge. The court rejected the defence of self-defence and found Randall-Sheals guilty as charged.

The final orders of the court were that Randall-Sheals be convicted of assault and that sentencing be deferred pending a report on his background and circumstances. The court further ordered that Randall-Sheals be subject to any further directions from the sentencing judge.

Orders