Raymond v Willmett - [2024] NTSC 68

Raymond v Willmett [2024] NTSC 68
PARTIES:RAYMOND, Courtney
v

WILLMETT, Garry

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
JURISDICTION:  APPEAL from LOCAL COURT exercising Territory jurisdiction
FILE NO:LCA 6 of 2024 (22108593)
DELIVERED:  13 August 2024
HEARING DATES:  12 August 2024
JUDGMENT OF:  Riley AJ
CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW—Appeal—Appeal against conviction—Unreasonable verdict unsupported by the evidence—Whether witnesses’ evidence related to events unrelated to the particularised charge—Path to conviction open—Appeal dismissed

Libke v The Queen (2007) 230 CLR 599; M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; Pell v the Queen (2020) 268 CLR 123, referred to.
REPRESENTATION:
Counsel:
Appellant:L Waugh
Respondent:  R McGlinn
Solicitors:
Appellant:Northern Territory Legal Aid Commission
Respondent:  Director of Public Prosecutions
Judgment category classification:    C
Judgment ID Number:  Ril2404
Number of pages:  8

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT DARWIN
Raymond v Willmett [2024] NTSC 68

No. LCA 6 of 2024 (22108593)
BETWEEN:

COURTNEY RAYMOND

Appellant

AND:

GARRY WILLMETT

Respondent

CORAM: RILEY AJ
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered 13 August 2024)

On 25 March 2024, following a trial in the Local Court, the appellant was found guilty of having committed an aggravated assault upon Ajay Nilco. She appeals that decision on the sole ground that the verdict was unreasonable and could not be supported having regard to the evidence.
As was observed by the High Court in Pell v The Queen[1] the issue for this Court is “whether it was open to the (Local Court Judge) to be satisfied of guilt beyond reasonable doubt, which is to say whether (the Local Court Judge) must, as distinct from might, have entertained a doubt about the appellant’s guilt”. Further, the High Court commented that, to say a jury (or in the present case the Local Court Judge) “must have had a doubt” is another way of saying that it was “not reasonably open” to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the commission of the offence.
The Court also observed:[2]
The function of the court of criminal appeal in determining a ground that contends that the verdict of the jury is unreasonable or cannot be supported having regard to the evidence, in a case such as the present, proceeds upon the assumption that the evidence of the complainant was assessed by the jury to be credible and reliable. The court examines the record to see whether, notwithstanding that assessment – either by reason of inconsistencies, discrepancies, or other inadequacy; or in light of other evidence – the court is satisfied that the jury, acting rationally, ought nonetheless to have entertained a reasonable doubt as to proof of guilt.
The hearing was conducted in the Local Court sitting at Wadeye. It is apparent from the transcript that there were technical difficulties in the course of the hearing but it is not suggested that those difficulties affected the outcome. The evidence was presented in the course of a single day and at the conclusion of the evidence his…

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 Raymond v Willmett

Details

AGLC: Raymond v Willmett [2024] NTSC 68
Case: [2024] NTSC 68
Decision Date: 13 August 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal was brought by the appellant against a conviction for assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The dispute arose from an altercation that occurred at a public place where the appellant was alleged to have assaulted the respondent, causing him injury. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, Court of Appeal.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the evidence presented at the trial was sufficient to support the appellant’s conviction. The court needed to determine if the witnesses’ testimonies related to the events that were the subject of the particularised charge. Additionally, the court considered whether the path to conviction was reasonably open to the jury based on the evidence provided.

The court found that the witnesses’ evidence was relevant to the events that led to the appellant's conviction, and the path to conviction was reasonably open. The testimonies were consistent and corroborated each other, providing a clear picture of the events that occurred. The court concluded that the jury was entitled to find the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt based on the evidence presented. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the conviction.

Orders