Ryan v Police - [2012] SASC 180

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Magistrates Appeals: Criminal)
RYAN v POLICE
[2012] SASC 180
Judgment of The Honourable Justice Vanstone
12 October 2012
CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE - APPEAL DISMISSED
Appeal against conviction - magistrate found appellant guilty of affray - magistrate accepted evidence of prosecution eyewitness and rejected contradictory evidence of appellant - evidence of appellant gave rise to question of self-defence - whether magistrate failed to have sufficient regard to the circumstances in which the claim of self-defence arose - whether magistrate failed to adequately articulate the way in which he resolved the critical differences in the evidence of the prosecution and of the appellant.
Held: no error of approach by magistrate - appeal dismissed.
Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 s 83C; Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988 s 31(2), referred to.
Douglass v The Queen (2012) 86 ALJR 1086; [2012] HCA 34, distinguished.
Papps v Police (2000) 77 SASR 210; R v Keyte (2000) 78 SASR 68; R v Power (2003) 141 A Crim R 203; R v Beard [2004] SASC 411, discussed.

RYAN v POLICE
[2012] SASC 180
Magistrates Appeal

VANSTONE J: The appellant, Beau Zachary Ryan, was found guilty of the offence of affray, contrary to s 83C of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935. It was alleged that the appellant used “unlawful violence towards another and the conduct was such that it would cause a person of reasonable firmness to fear for her personal safety”. The prosecution case was that the unlawful violence was used towards a man to whom I shall call “Williams”. The issue at trial was self-defence. The appellant gave evidence in his defence, which evidence was rejected by the magistrate.
On appeal the appellant argues that the magistrate failed to have sufficient regard to the circumstances in which the claim of self-defence arose and that he failed to adequately articulate the way in which he resolved the critical differences in the evidence of the prosecution and of the appellant.
Background
The incident giving rise to the charge occurred in the early hours of the morning of 25 September 2011 in the street outside a residence at Goode Road, Port Pirie. The residence was being used to host a party for a local hockey club which had been involved in three grand finals on the preceding day. There was a large group of people at the party which had commenced on the previous evening. The main prosecution witness, an off-duty police constable, Emma Nykiel, told the magistrate that she had been taking part in the party inside a shed when she heard banging, apparently on the outside of the shed. At that, she walked down the driveway and saw “several” people in the street fighting. She had proceeded down the driveway in company with some others, including Williams. She saw a man (Bowden) lying face down in the middle of the road. She saw…

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 Ryan v Police

Details

AGLC: Ryan v Police [2012] SASC 180
Case: [2012] SASC 180
Decision Date: 12 October 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Ryan v Police, the appellant appealed against a conviction of affray, arguing that the magistrate failed to adequately consider the circumstances of his self-defence claim and did not sufficiently articulate how he resolved the critical differences between the prosecution and defence evidence. The incident in question occurred during a large gathering outside a residence where a party was being held, leading to an affray involving multiple people. The primary prosecution witness, an off-duty police officer, testified that she observed the appellant attacking another individual, Williams, and subsequently hitting two other people. The appellant, however, gave a different account, asserting that he was acting in self-defence amidst a large brawl involving numerous participants. The court was tasked with determining whether the magistrate erred in his evaluation of the self-defence claim and the resolution of the conflicting testimonies.

The legal issues before the court were whether the magistrate erred in his approach to the self-defence claim and if he adequately articulated the resolution of the conflicting evidence. Specifically, the court needed to assess if the magistrate overlooked the circumstances surrounding the appellant's self-defence claim and failed to clearly explain how he resolved the discrepancies between the prosecution and defence accounts. The central focus was on whether the magistrate's decision-making process was flawed in a way that rendered the verdict unreasonable or insupportable given the evidence presented.

The court found that the magistrate did not err in his approach. The reasoning was that the magistrate thoroughly evaluated the self-defence claim within the context of the overall affray and provided a clear explanation of how he resolved the conflicting testimonies. The magistrate's decision to credit the prosecution witness's account over the appellant's was deemed reasonable, considering the details and consistency of the prosecution evidence. Consequently, the court concluded that the appeal was without merit, and the conviction was upheld.

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed, and the conviction for affray was affirmed. The court's decision underscored the importance of a magistrate's careful consideration of all evidence and clear articulation of the reasoning behind resolving conflicting testimonies, particularly in cases involving self-defence claims amidst large group altercations.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

On appeal the appellant argues that the magistrate failed to have sufficient regard to the circumstances in which the claim of self-defence arose and that he failed to adequately articulate the way in which he resolved the critical differences in the evidence of the prosecution and of the appellant.Background The incident giving rise to the charge occurred in the early hours of the morning of 25 September 2011 in the street outside a residence at Goode Road, Port Pirie. The residence was being used to host a party for a local hockey club which had been involved in three grand finals on the preceding day. There was a large group of people at the party which had commenced on the previous evening. The main prosecution witness, an off-duty police constable, Emma Nykiel, told the magistrate that she had been taking part in the party inside a shed when she heard banging, apparently on the outside of the shed. At that, she walked down the driveway and saw “several” people in the street fighting. She had proceeded down the driveway in company with some others, including Williams. She saw a man (Bowden) lying face down in the middle of the road. She saw Williams approach the figure and bend down next to him. She followed Williams to see to that person. She saw Williams crouched down and then saw the appellant run over to Williams, take hold of his shirt and drag him backwards. She related that the appellant then turned Williams around, grabbed him by the scruff of the neck and punched him once to the face. She then saw him throw Williams towards a car which was parked on the street next to the driveway; whereupon Williams’ head made contact with the corner of the car and a tyre and he landed face down on the ground. There was no contest that he lost consciousness. And he was not called at trial. Seeing this, Nykiel moved in closer to Williams to protect him, took out her telephone and rang the Port Pirie Police Station. As she was doing so she said she saw the appellant go on to hit two other people who had emerged from the party. She said he was adopting a boxer’s stance and that he came back to her position and yelled at her. She feared she would be hit. Some other witnesses were called by the prosecution and in some small details they supported Nykiel’s evidence. It is unnecessary to relate anything of the evidence they gave. The defence case, which comprised the appellant’s evidence alone, amounted to a quite different version of this event. The appellant did not suggest that he had not been correctly identified by Nykiel, but he denied punching Williams. The appellant said that he had arrived in Goode Road in company with some others and that some of the “young lads”, who were celebrating a football premiership, began banging on the shed. He said that resulted in a flood of people emerging from the party onto the driveway. He said “a bit of an altercation started”. Then a couple of fights broke out and he saw that his younger companions were getting the worst of it. He said that about 30 people from the party were involved in the fight and about 15 people from his group were involved. He said there was “wrestling and punching and people getting thrown around”. He said it was “a brawl” and “pretty scary”.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

I do not consider that the criticisms of the magistrate’s reasons for decision are valid.Conclusion Neither ground of appeal is made out. The appeal must be dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.