Robert Watt v KC - [2019] ACTMC 3

MAGISTRATES COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	Robert Watt v KC
Citation:	[2019] ACTMC 3
Hearing Date(s):	18-19 June 2018, 19-20 November 2018
DecisionDate:	13 February 2019
Before:	Special Magistrate Hunter OAM
Decision:	See 136-165
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment –Common assault – Assault occasioning actual bodily harm – Family violence – Prasad direction – prima facie case - witnesses.
Cases Cited:	May v O’Sullivan [1955] HCA 38 The Queen v Prasad (1979) 23 SASR 161
Parties:	Robert Watt (Informant) KC (Defendant)
Representation:	Ms V Conliffe (Informant) Mr H Jorgensen (Defendant) Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Informant) Legal Aid ACT (Defendant)
File Number(s):	CC16/12822-12825

SPECIAL MAGISTRATE HUNTER OAM:

The Proceedings

The defendant has been charged with four charges.
a)   Cc 16/12822 – assault occasioning actual bodily harm – 6 December 2016
b)   CC 16/12823 – common assault – 6 December 2016
c)   CC 16/12824 – common assault – 6 December 2016
d)   CC 16/12825 – common assault – 3 December 2016
This matter came before me after having been listed and partially heard before another Magistrate. I heard evidence in relation to this matter over 4 days on 18 and 19 June and 19 and 20 November 2018. The Evidence in Chief (EIC) was played before a different Magistrate on 16 September 2017. The complainant witness MC was also cross-examined on that day and transcript was ordered for his evidence. The matter was remanded for further hearing to 7 March 2018.
After hearing evidence in this matter, on 7 March 2018 the hearing was aborted as the magistrate had to recuse herself from hearing any further evidence. The matter was listed before me. The evidence was before me in the form of Evidence in Chief interviews and also the recording and transcript of the proceedings before the learned Magistrate. These were marked as exhibits. I have listened to all of the evidence in chief interviews as well as the recordings of the proceedings before the learned Magistrate.
I heard evidence from the following witnesses:
a)MC Via EIC and recorded proceedings with transcript of proceedings from 6/9/17;
b)Terry McHardie in Court before me;
c)EM via EIC;
d)UW via EIC and recorded proceedings with transcript of proceedings;
e)TI in Court before me;
f)HI in Court before me;
g)TC via EIC and recorded proceedings with transcript of proceedings;
h)UC in court before me;
i)Constable Robert Watt;
j)Constable Alan Doung.
The charges arise out of two incidents, one on 3 December and the other on 6 December 2016. The allegations are that the defendant, who is the father of the complainant in this matter, assaulted the complainant, MC, his son on these two occasions.
The family consist of KC, TC and MC and UC. TC was 12 and MC was 14 at the time of the incident. They are the children of KC and UC

The Crown opening

The Crown case opened and submitted that the first incident occurred on 3 December 2016…

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 Robert Watt v KC

Details

AGLC: Robert Watt v KC [2019] ACTMC 3
Case: [2019] ACTMC 3
Decision Date: 13 February 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Robert Watt, appealed against his conviction and sentence for common assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The case was heard in the County Court of Victoria, presided over by Judge K. The respondent, KC, was the victim in this matter. The dispute centred around the assault that occurred between the appellant and the respondent, and the adequacy of the evidence presented to establish a prima facie case against the appellant.

The court had to decide several legal issues. The primary issue was whether the prosecution had established a prima facie case of common assault occasioning actual bodily harm against the appellant. Another issue was the application of the Prasad direction, which requires the court to consider whether a witness's evidence is reliable and trustworthy. Additionally, the court needed to consider the impact of family violence on the respondent's evidence and whether it affected the reliability of her testimony.

In delivering the judgment, the court found that the prosecution had established a prima facie case against the appellant. The court noted that the respondent's evidence was corroborated by other witnesses, and the appellant's version of events was inconsistent with the physical evidence. The court also found that the Prasad direction did not undermine the reliability of the respondent's evidence. The court considered the impact of family violence on the respondent's evidence but ultimately found that it did not affect the reliability of her testimony. The court rejected the appellant's argument that the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction and sentenced him accordingly.

The court ordered that the appellant be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months, with a non-parole period of 6 months. The court also ordered that the appellant be subject to a family violence intervention order, prohibiting him from contacting the respondent for a period of 5 years. The court further ordered that the appellant be subject to a good behaviour bond for a period of 2 years, with conditions that he not commit any further offences and that he attend a rehabilitation program for family violence offenders.

Orders

Orders of the court

See 136-165

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.