Simon Thoroughgood v Lauren Eve Greenup

[2013] ACTSC 46

SIMON THOROUGHGOOD V LAUREN EVE GREENUP
[2013] ACTSC 46 (15 March 2013)

Crimes (Sentencing) Act2005 (ACT)

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT

ON APPEAL FROM THE MAGISTRATES COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

No. SCA 83 of 2012

Judge:             Nield AJ
Supreme Court of the ACT

Date:              15 March 2013

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE     )
  )          No. SCA 83 of 2012
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY           )          

ON APPEAL FROM THE MAGISTRATES COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

BETWEEN:SIMON THOROUGHGOOD

Appellant

AND:LAURA EVE GREENUP

Respondent

ORDER

Judge:  Nield AJ
Date:  15 March 2013
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The appeal be dismissed.

1. As to the appeal of Simon Thoroughgood

1. On 8 September 2011 the now estranged wife of the appellant complained to police that, on two occasions, she had been assaulted by him when they were together in his car.  The first assault was grabbing her jaw and squeezing it.  The second assault was pouring water from a water bottle into her mouth.  If those things occurred, then those things, albeit minor in the scheme of things, amounted to assaults.  The appellant was charged with two charges of having assaulted the complainant.

1. In course of time, the charges against the appellant came before a magistrate in the ACT Magistrates Court. He pleaded not guilty to having assaulted the complainant. The complainant gave evidence and was cross examined. The police officer, to whom the complainant complained, gave evidence and was cross examined. Statements of the complaint’s co-workers, who had seen her and spoken to her both before and after the alleged assaults, were admitted into evidence. The appellant gave evidence and was cross examined. The magistrate, after reviewing the evidence, found the offences to be proved and, exercising section 17 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act2005 (ACT), without proceeding to conviction in respect of the assaults, placed the appellant on a good behaviour order. The appellant, being dissatisfied with the magistrates finding of guilt, appealed, as he was entitled to do, to this court.

1. Today I have conducted his appeal.  The appeal was conducted upon the transcript of the evidence before the magistrate.  The appellant is unrepresented.  He is not a lawyer.  He is unfamiliar with the court’s procedure for the hearing of an appeal.  He is concerned by the magistrate’s findings of guilt upon his employment.  That is to be expected.  The difficulty for the appellant is that the magistrate properly and adequately stated the evidence presented before him and properly and adequately explained his reasons for reaching the decisions that he did.  Upon my reading of the magistrates reasons, I cannot detect any error, although that is not to say that I would have done what the magistrate did in the way that he did it.  Everyone has his or her own way of doing things. 

1. I am satisfied that the magistrate properly and adequately referred to the evidentiary material and weighed it so as to produce the result that was produced.  He was not in any error in doing what he did.  The appeal is doomed to failure.  I dismiss the appeal. 

1. I note that the magistrate was in error in relation to his reference to the offences as charge case 9604 refers to the assault by grabbing the complainant’s jaw and squeezing it and charge case 9605 refers to the assault by pouring water from a water bottle into the complainant’s mouth.  The orders of the magistrate are confirmed.

I certify that the preceding six (6) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of his Honour, Justice Nield.

Associate:

Date:         18 March 2013

Counsel for the Appellant:  Litigant in person
Solicitor for the Appellant:  Litigant in person
Counsel for the Respondent:   Mr K Lee
Solicitor for the Respondent:  ACT Director of Public Prosecutions
Date of hearing:  15 March 2013
Date of judgment:  15 March 2013