Ritson v Myers - [2012] NSWSC 1504

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Ritson v Myers [2012] NSWSC 1504
Hearing dates: 13 July 2012
Decision date: 03 September 2012
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Latham J
Decision:
1. The appeal is dismissed
2. The plaintiff is to pay the defendant's costs

Catchwords: STATUTORY INTERPRETATION - Crimes Act 1900, s 556(2) - whether defendant a person against whom civil proceedings had been taken - whether criminal proceedings "for the same cause" as civil proceedings - discretionary disposition of appeal under Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001, s 59(2)
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001
Law Reform (Vicarious Liability) Act 1983
Interpretation Act 1987
Cases Cited: Knezevic v Markovic [1985] 5 FCR 219; (1985) 56 ALR 557
Read v Brown (1888) 22 QBD 128
State of New South Wales v Ibbett [2006] HCA 57; (2006) 229 CLR 638
Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 153 ALR 490
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Brendan Paul Ritson - (Plaintiff)
Karen Grace Myers - (Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
WG Roser SC - (Plaintiff)
M Thangaraj SC / B Haverfield - (Defendant)
Solicitors:
Mitchell Lawyers - (Plaintiff)
Oates Legal - (Defendant)

File Number(s): 2011/356598

Judgment

The Plaintiff, Mr Ritson, appeals against the decision of Magistrate Wynhausen of 7 October 2011 pursuant to s 56(1) of the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001. He seeks the setting aside of the decision dismissing proceedings against the defendant, Ms Myers, and that the matter be remitted back to the Local Court.

Background

The proceedings arose out of an incident that occurred at the Surry Hills Police Station in Sydney on 19 July 2006 between Mr Ritson, then a police constable, and Ms Myers, then a police inspector. On 3 October 2008, Mr Ritson commenced civil proceedings in the District Court of NSW against the State of New South Wales pursuant to s 9B(2) of the Law Reform (Vicarious Liability) Act 1983. Under s 6 of the Law Reform (Vicarious Liability) Act, Ms Myers was deemed to be a person in the service of the Crown as a police officer and was therefore precluded from being joined as a party to the proceedings.

In the civil proceedings, Christie ADCJ found that Ms Myers had thrown a pizza box in the direction of Mr Ritson constituting the tortious act of assault. Judgment was entered in favour of Mr Ritson and he was awarded the sum of $2050 comprising compensatory, aggravated, and exemplary damages.

On 21 March 2011, Mr Ritson brought a private prosecution in the Local Court of New South Wales against Ms Myers under s 60(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 for assault police officer in execution of his duty. Later, Mr Ritson laid an additional charge under s 61 of the Crimes Act. Ms Myers filed a notice of motion in the criminal division of the Local Court seeking that the proceedings be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. She also called in aid s 556(2) of the Crimes Act in…

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 Ritson v Myers

Details

AGLC: Ritson v Myers [2012] NSWSC 1504
Case: [2012] NSWSC 1504
Decision Date: 03 September 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Ritson v Myers, the appellant sought to appeal a decision made by the District Court of New South Wales in relation to a statutory interpretation issue. The appellant argued that the District Court had incorrectly interpreted s 556(2) of the Crimes Act 1900, which pertains to whether the defendant was a person against whom civil proceedings had been taken, and whether the criminal proceedings were for the same cause as the civil proceedings. The respondent, Myers, sought to have the appeal dismissed on the grounds that it had no reasonable prospect of success.

The primary legal issue before the court was the interpretation of s 556(2) of the Crimes Act 1900, and whether the appellant's criminal proceedings were indeed for the same cause as the civil proceedings. The court was required to determine whether the appellant's actions constituted a crime under the statute, and whether the appeal should be dismissed due to a lack of reasonable prospect of success.

In considering the statutory interpretation, the court held that the interpretation of s 556(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 required a consideration of the context in which the statute was enacted. The court found that the appellant's actions did not constitute a crime under the statute, as the civil proceedings did not relate to the same cause as the criminal proceedings. Additionally, the court held that the discretionary disposition of appeal under s 59(2) of the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 should be exercised in favour of the respondent, as the appeal had no reasonable prospect of success.

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed, and the respondent was granted costs. The court's decision highlights the importance of statutory interpretation in criminal proceedings, and the need for careful consideration of the context in which a statute is enacted.

Orders