Shankar Ramalingam v The Queen - [2012] ACTCA 47

SHANKAR RAMALINGAM v THE QUEEN
[2012] ACTCA 47 (7 November 2012)

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

No. ACTCA 29 of 2011
No. SCC 354 of 2008

Judges: Penfold, Burns and Buchanan JJ
Court of Appeal of the Australian Capital Territory
Date: 7 November 2012

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE     )
  )          No. ACTCA 29 of 2011
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY    )

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

BETWEEN:SHANKAR RAMALINGAM
Appellant

AND:THE QUEEN
Respondent

ORDER

Judges: Penfold, Burns and Buchanan JJ

Date: 7 November 2012
Place: Canberra

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

The appeal be dismissed.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE     )
  )          No. ACTCA 29 of 2011
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY    )

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

BETWEEN:SHANKAR RAMALINGAM
Appellant

AND:THE QUEEN
Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Judges:  Penfold, Burns and Buchanan JJ
Date:  7 November 2012
Place:  Canberra

Penfold J:

I agree with the judgment to be given by his Honour, Buchanan J, and the order proposed.

I certify that the preceding one (1) paragraph numbered [1] is a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of her Honour Justice Penfold.
Associate:
Date:

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE     )
  )          No. ACTCA 29 of 2011
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY    )

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

BETWEEN:SHANKAR RAMALINGAM
Appellant

AND:THE QUEEN
Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Judges:  Penfold, Burns and Buchanan JJ
Date:  7 November 2012
Place:  Canberra

Burns J:

I agree with the orders proposed by Buchanan J and with the reasons that he has given.

I certify that the preceding one (1) paragraph numbered [2] is a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of his Honour Justice Burns.
Associate:
Date:

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE     )
  )          No. ACTCA 29 of 2011
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY    )

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

BETWEEN:SHANKAR RAMALINGAM
Appellant

AND:THE QUEEN
Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Judges:  Penfold, Burns and Buchanan JJ
Date:  7 November 2012
Place:  Canberra

Buchanan J:

The appellant was found guilty of four counts of assault after a judge-alone trial. Convictions were recorded but the appellant was immediately released on condition that he sign an undertaking to be of good behaviour and comply with other conditions for a period of nine months.

The appellant has appealed against each of the convictions on the ground that they are unreasonable and cannot be supported by the evidence. No written submissions were provided to the court by the appellant in support of his appeal. Written submissions were received from the respondent. The appellant represented himself at the hearing of the appeal.

The charges against the appellant arose from an incident which occurred on 8 July 2008 at the…

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 Shankar Ramalingam v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Shankar Ramalingam v The Queen [2012] ACTCA 47
Case: [2012] ACTCA 47
Decision Date: 7 November 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Shankar Ramalingam, appealed to the Court of Criminal Appeal of Western Australia against his conviction for the offence of dangerous driving occasioning death. The dispute concerned the applicant's contention that the trial judge erred in law by failing to direct the jury on the alternative offence of dangerous driving.

The central legal issue before the Court of Criminal Appeal was whether the trial judge was obliged to leave the lesser charge of dangerous driving to the jury, notwithstanding that the applicant had been convicted of the more serious charge of dangerous driving occasioning death. This required the Court to consider the circumstances in which a judge must direct a jury on an alternative offence, particularly where the evidence might support a finding of guilt on that lesser charge.

The Court of Criminal Appeal reasoned that a judge is only required to direct the jury on an alternative offence if there is a rational view of the evidence that would permit a jury to acquit on the principal charge but convict on the alternative. In this instance, the Court found that the evidence presented at trial did not permit such a rational view. The evidence, if accepted, established that the driving was dangerous and that this dangerous driving caused the death. Therefore, there was no evidentiary basis upon which the jury could have found the applicant guilty of dangerous driving but not guilty of dangerous driving occasioning death. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

The appeal be dismissed.

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.