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:

The appeal be dismissed.

As to the appeal of Simon Thoroughgood

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.

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.

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.

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…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Simon Thoroughgood v Lauren Eve Greenup and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2013] ACTSC 46
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Simon Thoroughgood has appealed against the Magistrates Court’s decision to find him guilty of two counts of assault against his estranged wife, Lauren Eve Greenup. The case came before Nield AJ in the Supreme Court of the ACT on 15 March 2013. The appellant, who is not a lawyer and unrepresented, pleaded not guilty to the charges of assault, which involved grabbing the complainant’s jaw and squeezing it, and pouring water from a water bottle into her mouth. The magistrate found the appellant guilty and issued a good behaviour order under section 17 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT). The appeal was heard on the transcript of the evidence before the magistrate.

The court had to determine whether the magistrate’s decision to find the appellant guilty was correct. The court considered the evidence presented before the magistrate, including the complainant’s testimony, the police officer’s testimony, and statements from the complainant’s co-workers. The court found that the magistrate properly and adequately referred to the evidentiary material and weighed it to produce the result that was produced. The magistrate did not make any error in his decision-making process, and the appeal is therefore dismissed.

The court noted that the magistrate was incorrect in referring to the offences as charge case 9604 and charge case 9605, but this did not affect the outcome of the appeal. The orders of the magistrate are confirmed.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal be dismissed and the orders of the magistrate are confirmed. The appellant is not a lawyer and is unrepresented, while the respondent is represented by Mr. K. Lee and the ACT Director of Public Prosecutions.

Orders