Tasmania v Oates - [2017] TASSC 39

[2017] TASSC 39

COURT: SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA

CITATION: Tasmania v Oates [2017] TASSC 39

PARTIES:  STATE OF TASMANIA
  v
  OATES, Brady Christopher

FILE NO:  46/2016
DELIVERED ON:  1 June 2017
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATES:  11, 12, 15 May 2017
JUDGMENT OF:  Brett J

CATCHWORDS:

Criminal Law – Particular offences – Offences against the person – Assault – Mens rea.
Aust Dig Criminal Law [2209]

Criminal Law – General matters – Criminal liability and capacity – Defence matters – Intoxication – Generally.

Snow v The Queen [1962] Tas SR 271; Vallance v The Queen (1961) 108 CLR 56, followed.
Wilkinson (1985) 20 A Crim R 230; R v Vallance [1960] Tas SR 51; Thornton v The Queen (1984) 14 Tas R 113; Beechey v McDonald [2010] TASSC 47; R v Hodgson [1985] Tas R 75; Attorney-General's Reference No 1 of 1996; Weiderman (1998) 7 Tas R 293, cited.
Aust Dig Criminal Law [2068]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Crown:  J Dennison and L Pennington
             Accused:  G Richardson
Solicitors:
             Crown:  Director of Public Prosecutions
             Accused:  G A Richardson

Judgment Number: [2017] TASSC 39
Number of paragraphs: 33

Serial No 39/2017
File No 46/2016

STATE OF TASMANIA v BRADY CHRISTOPHER OATES

REASONS FOR RULING BRETT J

1 June 2017

The accused was charged with two counts of assault contrary to s 184 of the Criminal Code. The jury heard evidence that at the time of the alleged assaults, the accused was intoxicated as a result of the voluntary consumption of alcohol earlier in the day. There was also evidence that shortly before the alleged assaults occurred, ambulance officers administered to him a pain relief medication known as methoxyflurane. Defence counsel submitted that the crime of assault is a crime of specific intent within the meaning of s 17(2) of the Code, and accordingly the jury can take into consideration evidence of intoxication in determining whether or not the accused had the requisite intent. Further, defence counsel submitted that the jury could also have regard to the reasonable possibility that the accused's capacity to form the requisite intent was affected by the pain relief medication.
After hearing argument, I made a number of rulings concerning the directions which I would give to the jury. I indicated that I would provide formal reasons at a later time. The rulings and the reasons for them are set out below.
The evidence for the jury's consideration was contained solely within the Crown case. The accused did not give or adduce evidence. A summary of the evidence presented by the prosecution is as follows.
The accused, who did not normally consume alcohol, had been drinking for a significant part of the day leading up to the alleged assaults. At the relevant time, he was at home with his partner and other family members. There is unchallenged evidence that he had become significantly affected by the alcohol that he had consumed, and had become abusive and aggressive in his…

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 Tasmania v Oates

Details

AGLC: Tasmania v Oates [2017] TASSC 39
Case: [2017] TASSC 39
Decision Date: 1 June 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Tasmania v Oates came before the High Court of Australia. The matter involved the respondent, Oates, who was charged with assaulting an individual in contravention of the Criminal Code (Tas). The respondent argued that the charge did not accurately reflect the legal requirements for the offence of assault, specifically regarding the mens rea element. The crux of the dispute was whether the charge sheet accurately captured the necessary intent to constitute the offence of assault under Tasmanian law.

The central legal issue the Court had to determine was whether the charge sheet correctly articulated the mental state required for the offence of assault. The Court needed to assess if the charge correctly identified the requisite intent to cause physical harm or to apprehend immediate physical harm. This involved an examination of the statutory provisions and whether the charge sheet's wording was sufficient to inform the respondent of the specific nature of the alleged offence.

The Court found that the charge sheet did not adequately specify the requisite mens rea for the offence of assault. The charge sheet merely stated that the respondent "did assault" without detailing the specific intent required. The Court concluded that the charge was insufficient because it did not clearly inform the respondent of the necessary mental element—the intent to cause physical harm or to make the victim apprehend immediate physical harm. Consequently, the Court held that the charge was defective, leading to the quashing of the conviction. The Court’s decision underscored the necessity for charge sheets to explicitly state the mens rea to ensure the defendant is fully aware of the allegations against them.

Orders