Soppa v Chatterton - [1995] QCA 66

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL	[1995] QCA 066
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

C.A. No. 499 of 1994.

Brisbane

[Soppa v. Chatterton]

DARREN JOHN SOPPA

DIANNA VEE CHATTERTON

(Appellant)

____________________________________________________________________

Pincus J.A.
McPherson J.A.
White J.

____________________________________________________________________

Judgment delivered 15/03/1995

Judgment of the Court

____________________________________________________________________

APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION DISMISSED

____________________________________________________________________

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW - conviction - aiding in self-defence - preventing a breach of the peace - whether reasonably necessary - whether reasonably proportioned - question of fact.

Ss. 260, 271, 272, 273 Criminal Code.

Counsel:Mr S Herbert Q.C. for the appellant.

Mr D Bullock for the respondent.

Solicitors:R J Webster for the appellant.

Director of Prosecutions for the respondent.

Hearing date:03/03/1995.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - THE COURT

Judgment delivered 15/03/1995

The appellant was found guilty in the Magistrates Court of having unlawfully assaulted one Petesfield, thereby doing him bodily harm. The assault consisted of pouring over Petesfield a mug of very hot water which caused burns depicted in photographs which we have seen; the appellant's purpose was to assist her de facto who was then fighting with Petesfield. No conviction was recorded, but the appellant was ordered to pay $1,200 compensation to Petesfield for his injuries. That is a lesser sanction than is prescribed in Deuteronomy Ch. 25 Verse 12.

The assault as described is not in issue, but the appellant's counsel submits that the appellant should have been found not guilty, on the ground that her actions were made lawful by s. 260 of the Criminal Code (preventing a breach of the peace) or s. 273 (aiding in self-defence). The magistrate rejected both of these defences.

His Worship set out his view of the facts in some detail and it seems desirable to summarise that. On 21 June 1993 a physical struggle began between Petesfield and Vandenberg in an office at which a business of marine brokerage was conducted. The appellant did not see how this began, the only evidence on that subject being that of Petesfield, who said that Vandenberg "shouldered into him". Vandenberg, described as being the "de facto husband and employer" of the appellant, was not called. Petesfield had hold of Vandenberg in the area of his head and neck and Vandenberg clutched those parts of Petesfield that he could reach; the two began what his Worship described as a "grotesque waltz" involving a "throwing by one or the other of each other around the room", bumping into furniture and into glass doors and, towards the end, some punching.

The people involved with the business conducted in the office had "lived in some state of consternation" with respect to Petesfield who, the magistrate (at least implicitly) found, had been involved in altercations, was prone to get into arguments and fights and had harsh words with people on a regular basis. The incident in issue stemmed from Petesfield's purchase of a boat through the office in question; Petesfield thought that he had been badly treated in relation to that transaction by Vandenberg and others. This…

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 Soppa v Chatterton

Details

AGLC: Soppa v Chatterton [1995] QCA 66
Case: [1995] QCA 66
Decision Date: 15/03/1995

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Soppa v Chatterton, the appellant, Dianna Chatterton, appealed against her conviction for unlawfully assaulting Petesfield by pouring hot water over him, causing bodily harm. The assault occurred while Chatterton was assisting her de facto in a physical altercation with Petesfield. Although the appellant was not convicted, she was ordered to pay compensation to Petesfield for his injuries. Chatterton's defence hinged on the argument that her actions were justified under sections 260 and 273 of the Criminal Code, which pertain to preventing a breach of the peace and aiding in self-defence, respectively. However, the magistrate rejected these defences, finding that the use of hot water was excessive and disproportionate to the situation.

The legal issues before the court were whether the appellant's actions were reasonably necessary and proportionate to the circumstances, particularly in the context of preventing a breach of the peace and aiding in self-defence. The court needed to assess the reasonableness of the appellant's actions based on the evidence presented, particularly the severity of the struggle between Petesfield and Vandenberg, and whether the appellant's use of hot water exceeded what was reasonably necessary.

The court held that the magistrate's findings were based on a detailed assessment of the evidence and the witnesses' credibility. The magistrate found that the struggle between Petesfield and Vandenberg, though intense, did not involve any seriously threatening assaults. The court acknowledged that the appellant's use of hot water effectively ended the struggle but emphasized that effectiveness alone does not determine the lawfulness of an action. The court concluded that the magistrate's findings were supported by the evidence and that there was no basis to overturn the decision. The appeal against the conviction was dismissed, affirming the magistrate's judgment.

Orders