Schmidt v SA Police No. SCGRG 95/918 Judgment No. 5164 Number of Pages 11 Criminal Law and Procedure

The case of Schmidt v SA Police No. SCGRG 95/918 involves an appeal against a confirmation order made by a Magistrate under the Domestic Violence Act 1994. The appeal was brought by John Francis Page Schmidt, the defendant, against an interim Domestic Violence Restraining Order made in favour of his wife, Michele Schmidt. The order was confirmed by Mr Metanomski SM, a Magistrate, following a hearing. The defendant contests the confirmation, arguing that the Magistrate erred in various respects including the onus of proof and the evaluation of evidence. The central legal issues pertain to the interpretation of the Domestic Violence Act 1994, particularly sections 4 and 9(2), and the allocation of the onus of proof in the context of confirming a domestic violence restraining order.

Bollen J, in his judgment, addresses the grounds of appeal raised by the defendant. He finds that the Magistrate correctly assessed the evidence and applied the law. The judge emphasises that while the defendant was summoned to show cause why the order should not be confirmed, this did not reverse the onus of proof. Instead, it imposed an evidentiary onus on the defendant to present some reason or evidence that could negate the complainant's case. Ultimately, the final onus to prove that the original order should be confirmed lies on the complainant, requiring proof on the balance of probabilities. The judge concludes that the Magistrate's decision was sound and correctly applied the legal principles.

The Supreme Court dismisses the appeal, affirming the Magistrate's decision to confirm the Domestic Violence Interim Restraining Order. The court finds no error in the Magistrate's handling of the evidence or in his application of the law, and thus upholds the order.