SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: | Rawsthorne v Wilson |
Citation: | [2018] ACTSC 342 |
Hearing Date(s): | 19 May 2016 |
DecisionDate: | 13 December 2018 |
Before: | Penfold J |
Decision: | 1. The appeal is allowed. 2. The orders made by the Magistrate are set aside and verdicts of not guilty are recorded on charges CC2015/1844 and CC2015/1845. |
Catchwords: | APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – Criminal law – appeal against conviction – self-defence – escaping unlawful confinement – whether verdict unsafe and unsatisfactory – appeal allowed |
Legislation Cited: | Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), s 26 Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), ss 8, 10, 33, 42 Australian Road Rules, r 272(a) Explanatory Memorandum, Criminal Code Bill 1994 (Cth) 32 |
Cases Cited: | Attwood v The Queen (1960) 102 CLR 353 Dal Cortivo v The Queen [2010] ACTCA 14; 204 A Crim R 55 Goodrich Aerospace Pty Ltd v Arsic [2006] NSWCA 187; 66 NSWLR 186 Zecevic v Director of Public Prosecutions (Vic) (1987) 162 CLR 645 |
Parties: | Adrian Rawsthorne (Appellant) Mark Wilson (Respondent) |
Representation: | Counsel Mr J Lawton (Appellant) Ms S Naidu (Respondent) |
| Solicitors Ben Aulich and Associates (Appellant) ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent) | |
File Number(s): | SCC 97 of 2015 |
Decision under appeal: | Court/Tribunal: ACT Magistrates Court Before: Special Magistrate Doogan Date of Decision: 27 October 2015 Case Title: Mark Wilson v Adrian Rawsthorne Court File Number(s): CC2015/1844 and CC2015/1845 |
Introduction
Adrian Rawsthorne has appealed against convictions recorded in the Magistrates Court on charges of common assault under s 26 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) (the assault charge), and interfering with a driver’s control of a vehicle under rule 272(a) of the Australian Road Rules (the driving charge).
Background
The charges arise from an altercation between Mr Rawsthorne and a taxi driver, after Mr Rawsthorne and his girlfriend, Natalie Chynoweth, got into the taxi following a night of drinking in Canberra City.
Certain aspects of the narrative do not seem to be disputed.
(a)Mr Rawsthorne and Ms Chynoweth, who were both fairly intoxicated, got into a taxi driven by the complainant, Joe Gunaratnam, at the Bailey’s Corner taxi rank in Civic. Mr Gunaratnam (whom I shall, with no disrespect intended, refer to as the taxi driver) asked for a pre-payment, for which the appellant offered a bank card. The taxi driver tried to process the payment, but payment was declined. Mr Rawsthorne then transferred money from another account to the bank card, but again payment was declined. The taxi driver retained Mr Rawsthorne’s bank card.
(b)After Mr Rawsthorne and Ms Chynoweth got…
Continue reading Rawsthorne v Wilson
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Rawsthorne v Wilson [2018] ACTSC 342
- Case
- [2018] ACTSC 342
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the County Court was whether the magistrate erred in failing to consider the defence of self-defence, which was raised by the appellant. The court had to determine whether the verdict was unsafe and unsatisfactory such that it ought to be quashed and a verdict of not guilty entered. This required a review of the evidence presented at the original trial and an assessment of whether the magistrate's failure to properly consider self-defence resulted in a miscarriage of justice.
The County Court found that the magistrate did indeed err in not adequately considering the defence of self-defence. The court held that the evidence supported a reasonable possibility that the appellant acted in self-defence, and that the magistrate's failure to properly evaluate this defence led to an unsafe and unsatisfactory verdict. The appeal was allowed, and the convictions were quashed. The court set aside the original orders and recorded verdicts of not guilty on the charges CC2015/1844 and CC2015/1845.
In summary, the County Court of Victoria allowed the appellant's appeal on the grounds that the magistrate failed to properly consider the defence of self-defence. The convictions were quashed, and verdicts of not guilty were recorded on the specified charges. This decision highlights the importance of correctly applying the defence of self-defence in criminal cases and the consequences of such errors on the safety and satisfaction of the verdict.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The appeal is allowed.
2. The orders made by the Magistrate are set aside and verdicts of not guilty are recorded on charges CC2015/1844 and CC2015/1845.
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.