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:

1. 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:

1. 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:

1. 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:

1. 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. 

1. 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.

1. The charges against the appellant arose from an incident which occurred on 8 July 2008 at the home which the appellant shared with his wife and children.  The case against him was that during the course of an argument he struck his son (count 1); struck his wife when she interceded (count 2); threatened his son with a knife (count 3); and struck his wife again (count 4).  Some of the incidents were seen by the appellant’s neighbours who lived across the road, and their dinner guest.  They gave evidence at the trial.  Evidence was also given in the prosecution case by the appellant’s wife and son, each of whom he was accused of assaulting, and by his daughter.  Evidence was also given by police officers who testified to the physical state of the persons involved and their demeanour at the time the police officers arrived.  A knife was identified and seized.

1. In his own evidence the appellant gave a version of events concerning the incidents on the evening in question.  He alleged that he had been provoked by the attitude of his son.  He alleged that his son had been aggressive and that at one point he had discouraged any attack by his son by simply pulling a kitchen knife part way out of a knife block.  He characterised striking his son as only a “slap” after his son had struck him forcefully.  Contrary to the evidence of the appellant, his son, his daughter, his wife and the dinner guest of the appellant’s neighbours all saw a knife in the hands of the appellant as he confronted his son. 

1. The dinner guest and one of the neighbours saw the appellant strike his wife the second time.  The neighbours and their guest intervened in response to loud noise and found the appellant’s wife, son and daughter in distress.  The appellant’s wife and son testified to the initial assaults on each of them.  Some of this was seen and confirmed by the appellant’s daughter.  The trial judge gave a clear explanation, after a discussion of the evidence, including the appellant’s evidence, for concluding beyond reasonable doubt that each of the counts of assault had been established.

1. In his oral submissions in support of the appeal the appellant first complained that members of his family gave evidence by audiovisual link.  No application was made at the trial for any other arrangement.  This complaint is not the subject of any ground of appeal and it would not have assisted the appellant if it had been. 

1. The appellant then suggested that the trial judge did not expose his reasoning process.  In my view, that suggestion has no substance. 

1. The appellant then said that the trial judge was not unbiased.  Later complaints made by him seemed intended to bolster this suggestion but, in my view, none of them should be accepted.

1. Those later complaints include the complaint by the appellant that his own injuries were not sufficiently taken into account by the trial judge.  There is no substance in this complaint and it should not be accepted. 

1. The suggestion of bias was also supported by the matters to which I now refer.  The general effect of the appellant’s complaints was that his version of events was not accepted by the trial judge.  Nothing that was advanced by him in his oral submissions gave any reason to think that the trial judge had made any error in his assessment of the evidence.  The complaints made by the appellant crystallised in a suggestion that the trial judge required him to establish his own innocence; in other words, the trial judge did not respect the requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt.  That is clearly not so on any fair reading of the judgment under appeal.

1. It appears that the appellant also feels aggrieved because a defence of self defence was not accepted.  It is quite clear, in my view, that the appellant’s position about this aspect of the case was also fully considered. 

1. Finally, the appellant suggested that there were inconsistencies in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and that the trial judge dealt with such inconsistencies in a manner which was different from the way in which he dealt with inconsistencies in the evidence given by the appellant.  In my view, there is no substance in this complaint either.

1. It is no criticism of the appellant to say that he clearly did not understand the matters which he would need to establish to support his appeal if the appeal was to have any prospect of success.  Be that as it may, nothing he said, and nothing else apparent from the record, in my view supports his appeal, whether with respect to any suggestion of bias by the trial judge, any suggested failure to properly assess the evidence, or otherwise. 

1. In my view, no error of any kind has been identified in relation to the conduct of the trial, the conclusions reached by the trial judge or the appropriateness of the sentence imposed.  Accordingly my view is that the appeal should be dismissed.

I certify that the preceding fourteen (14) paragraphs numbered [3]–[16] are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of his Honour Justice Buchanan.

Acting Associate:            

Date:                 

Counsel for the appellant:  The appellant appeared in person
Counsel for the respondent:  Mr J Lundy
Solicitor for the respondent:  Office of ACT Director of Public Prosecutions
Date of hearing:   7 November 2012
Date of judgment:   7 November 2012