Rowlands v The Queen

[2021] NSWDC 723

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

Rowlands v R [2021] NSWDC 723

Hearing dates:

15 and 16 November 2021

Date of orders:

17 November 2021

Decision date:

17 November 2021

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Before:

P Taylor SC DCJ

Decision:

(1)   The conviction appeal is upheld.

(2)   I set aside the convictions and orders of Magistrate Greenwood made on 9 June 2021.

(3)   I find the accused not guilty on both charges.

(4)   I grant liberty to the appellant to make any application in respect of costs by email to my associate within 7 days.

Catchwords:

APPEAL – Conviction and Sentence Appeal

CRIME — Violent offences — Resist/Hinder police officer in execution of duty

CRIME — Summary offences — Offensive language in a public place

Legislation Cited:

Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002, s 99

Cases Cited:

Dyason v Butterworth [2015] NSWCA 52

Lim v R (2017) 25 DCLR (NSW) 253; [2017] NSWDC 231

Monis v R; Droudis v R (2013) 249 CLR 92; [2013] HCA 4

Police v Paton [2009] NSWLC 34

R v Jovanovic (1997) 42 NSWLR 520

Category:

Principal judgment

Parties:

Stephen James Rowlands (Appellant)
Regina (Respondent)

Representation:

Solicitors:
Bannisters Lawyers (Appellant)
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions NSW (Respondent)

File Number(s):

2020/10453

Publication restriction:

None

 Decision under appeal 

Court or tribunal:

Local Court of New South Wales

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Date of Decision:

9 June 2021

Before:

Magistrate M Greenwood

File Number(s):

2020/10453

Judgment

1. Stephen James Rowlands was convicted in the Local Court on two offences: offensive language in a public place and resisting an officer in the execution of his duty. The incident giving rise to the charges occurred in a shopping centre. The offensive language offence involved Mr Rowlands allegedly swearing at two police officers; the resisting was confined by the prosecutor to Mr Rowlands resisting his arrest on the offensive language charge.

2. Mr Rowlands appeals against the convictions.

Rehearing

3. A conviction appeal involves a rehearing on the basis of the evidence before the Magistrate, including by use of the transcript of evidence. Whilst the Court forms its own judgment in relation to the evidence, it recognises the advantage enjoyed by the Magistrate in seeing and hearing the witnesses. Here the Magistrate held that Mr Rowlands genuinely believed that what he has told the Court was true ^[1] so the advantage of the Magistrate may be of less significance since all the witnesses were found to be honest.

   1. 9/6/21, T47/10.

4. The Court is entitled to correct any legal, factual or discretionary errors. ^[2]

   2. Dyason v Butterworth [2015] NSWCA 52 at [28].

Background

5. On 28 November 2019 Mr Rowlands was purchasing some goods at the Coles supermarket in the Eastgate shopping centre at Bondi Junction. He overheard police conversing with another person, one Daniel Carlsson, in terms Mr Rowlands regarded as "rude and condescending". ^[3] As the police officers, Officer Starr and Officer Culligan, waited outside Coles for Mr Carlsson to complete his shopping, Mr Rowlands, carrying his…