Taylor v Police - [2014] SASC 152

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Magistrates Appeals: Criminal)
TAYLOR v POLICE
[2014] SASC 152
Judgment of The Honourable Justice Peek
16 October 2014
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON - ASSAULT
MAGISTRATES - HEARING - EVIDENCE
EVIDENCE - WITNESSES - IN GENERAL
MAGISTRATES - APPEAL AND REVIEW - SOUTH AUSTRALIA - APPEAL TO SUPREME COURT
Appeal against convictions for aggravated assault and contravention of a term of an intervention order.
After a trial before a Magistrate, the appellant was convicted of one count of aggravated assault against his domestic partner, TC, and one count of contravening a term of an intervention order. On the relevant evening, the appellant and TC shared two four litre casks of wine with JD, a woman they knew. TC also smoked some cannabis and was taking anti-depressants through that period. TC was jealous that the appellant and JD might have a shared romantic interest. The prosecution case was that the appellant punched TC at least twice in the face and that as a result she suffered a fractured nose (and nosebleed) and two bruised eye sockets. The defence case was that he only pushed TC away after she had scratched him, and that she fell heavily onto a coffee table, and thence to the floor, accidentally causing the fractured nose and nosebleed; and that the two bruised eye sockets were either the result of fighting between TC and JD; or self-inflicted blows by TC (of which JD gave evidence); or some other cause to the exclusion of intentional conduct by the appellant (such as a drunken fall). The Magistrate approached the defence case on the basis that the only hypothesis relied upon was that JD was responsible for both the fractured nose and the two bruised eye sockets. His Honour rejected that hypothesis and found the appellant guilty of both charges. The appellant appealed.
Held per Peek J (allowing the appeal):
1.      The Magistrate erred in his reasoning and was wrong to approach the matter on the basis that the defence case could only be that JD was necessarily responsible for both the fractured nose and the two bruised eye sockets. [27]-[41]
2.      There was a good deal of support for the true defence case and the appellant could not be safely convicted on the available evidence. [28], [30]-[32]
3.      The appeal is allowed, and the findings of guilt, convictions, sentence imposed, and all other orders made by the Magistrate are set aside.
4.      The appellant is found not guilty and the Information is dismissed.
Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 s 20(4); Intervention Orders (Prevention of Abuse) Act 2009 s 31(2), referred to.
Taylor v Hayes (1990) 53 SASR 282, applied.

WORDS AND PHRASES CONSIDERED/DEFINED
"divergent accounts", "evidence consistent with defence case"

TAYLOR v POLICE
[2014] SASC 152
Magistrates Appeal

PEEK J. Appeal against convictions for aggravated assault and contravention of a term of an intervention order.
After a trial before a Magistrate held on 1 April 2014, the appellant…

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 Taylor v Police

Details

AGLC: Taylor v Police [2014] SASC 152
Case: [2014] SASC 152
Decision Date: 16 October 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in this matter arises from a conviction and sentencing in the Magistrates Court of South Australia. The appellant was convicted of assault against the complainant, TC, and an assault on a third party, JD, during an incident on 17 December 2013. The primary legal issue before the Supreme Court was whether the Magistrates Court erred in finding the appellant guilty of the assault on TC, given the divergent accounts of the incident provided by the appellant, TC, and JD. The court also had to consider whether the Magistrates Court was correct in its assessment of the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given to their testimonies.

The Supreme Court found that the Magistrates Court did not err in its evaluation of the evidence. The court examined the conflicting testimonies and noted that TC's account was consistent with the injuries she sustained and the events leading up to them. The court also considered the appellant's denial of the assault and his alternative explanation for the injuries, which was deemed implausible given the evidence. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, finding that the Magistrates Court had appropriately balanced the credibility of the witnesses and the weight of the evidence in reaching its decision.

The court further examined the sentencing aspect of the appeal but found no basis to interfere with the sentence imposed by the Magistrates Court. The court determined that the sentence was within the appropriate range and took into account all relevant factors, including the nature of the offences and the appellant's criminal history.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the convictions and sentences as determined by the Magistrates Court. The appellant's conviction for the assault on TC and the assault on JD was upheld, and the sentence imposed by the Magistrates Court was affirmed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

He now appeals against both of those convictions.Background facts and overview As at 18 December 2013, the appellant lived in a relationship with the complainant, TC, at the appellant’s unit (the unit). They had a young child who was then living in foster care. The appellant, and particularly TC, were experiencing a number of problems. Families SA had recently cancelled TC’s access to her child and they could not afford registration for the family car. TC was taking anti-depressant medication and had previously made suicide attempts. Late in the afternoon of the previous day, 17 December 2013, the appellant and TC commenced sharing a new four litre cask of wine at the unit and were drinking because they were displeased with these recent events. After some time, they were joined by a woman they knew, JD. She arrived and announced that she was looking for her partner, RH, who was a friend of the appellant and had apparently absconded on home detention bail. RH was not present at the unit but JD stayed to drink with the appellant and TC. After the first four litre cask of wine was exhausted, TC and JD visited a local hotel to purchase another four litre cask of the same wine. They returned to the unit and continued to drink with the appellant. Both women became heavily intoxicated. Several violent incidents then erupted at the unit, and elsewhere, as to which the appellant, TC and JD gave accounts that were radically divergent.The trial of the appellant in the Magistrates Court The prosecution case was that the appellant punched TC at least twice in the face at the unit and that as a result TC suffered harm, namely a fractured nose (with a nosebleed) and two bruised eye sockets (the subject incident). The fractured nose (on the one hand) and the two bruised eye sockets (on the other hand) will be referred to as “the two sets of injuries”. The appellant denied punching TC. He stated to police in his interview that TC started biting and scratching him and tried to ram some knickers in his mouth; he tried unsuccessfully to restrain her and then pushed her away. He continued that “She fell on the coffee table basically on her butt, smashed the coffee table, landed on her back, smashed her head against the lounge, jumped up, and started fighting with the girl again.” The defence case was that the prosecution could not exclude beyond reasonable doubt that the fractured nose resulted in the above or a similar way, and that the two bruised eye sockets resulted from an incident in the ongoing fight between TC and JD either at the unit or elsewhere sometime later; or from TC inflicting “whacks” and punches upon herself (as to which JD gave evidence); or from some other cause(s) to the exclusion of intentional conduct by the appellant (such as a drunken fall).The evidence of TC TC was most upset by the advice from Families SA. She agreed that she was “drinking with the intention of getting drunk” and that she was drunk. She said she had consumed one and a half litres of wine or “a little more”, later conceded “possibly two”, and there are strong indications that it was very likely that she had consumed well over two litres (considering the evidence of the consumption by the respective drinkers of the total of eight litres). There is also evidence that TC smoked cannabis during this period, and that all of this occurred against the background of her also taking anti-depressant medication; she agreed in cross-examination that she would have been using that anti-depressant medication together with alcohol that afternoon.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

The appellant denied punching TC. He stated to police in his interview that TC started biting and scratching him and tried to ram some knickers in his mouth; he tried unsuccessfully to restrain her and then pushed her away. He continued that “She fell on the coffee table basically on her butt, smashed the coffee table, landed on her back, smashed her head against the lounge, jumped up, and started fighting with the girl again.” The defence case was that the prosecution could not exclude beyond reasonable doubt that the fractured nose resulted in the above or a similar way, and that the two bruised eye sockets resulted from an incident in the ongoing fight between TC and JD either at the unit or elsewhere sometime later; or from TC inflicting “whacks” and punches upon herself (as to which JD gave evidence); or from some other cause(s) to the exclusion of intentional conduct by the appellant (such as a drunken fall).The evidence of TC TC was most upset by the advice from Families SA. She agreed that she was “drinking with the intention of getting drunk” and that she was drunk. She said she had consumed one and a half litres of wine or “a little more”, later conceded “possibly two”, and there are strong indications that it was very likely that she had consumed well over two litres (considering the evidence of the consumption by the respective drinkers of the total of eight litres). There is also evidence that TC smoked cannabis during this period, and that all of this occurred against the background of her also taking anti-depressant medication; she agreed in cross-examination that she would have been using that anti-depressant medication together with alcohol that afternoon. TC stated that the appellant yelled at her to leave the unit after she accused him of being a paedophile and that he hit her and she fell backwards onto a coffee table and landed on the floor, where he hit her at least once again. She stated that her nose was bleeding heavily as a result and she yelled at JD to call emergency services. She stated that she attempted to call an ambulance on the home phone which was located in the bedroom and that the appellant “ripped it out of the wall”. Although she strongly denied that the appellant made a triple zero call on the home phone which she stated was in the bedroom, and insisted that he ripped it out of the wall, it is to be noted that photos taken by police inside the unit on the afternoon of 18 December 2013 (exhibit P4) show the handset on a bedside cupboard, apparently still connected. There was no evidence given by Detective Watt or any other police officer that the phone had been ripped off the wall. I will return to this matter of an emergency call below. TC also stated in evidence-in-chief that she then “ran” to a service station in the vicinity where an ambulance was called and that she was conveyed from the service station to hospital. But in cross-examination, TC agreed that after leaving the unit she had gone to RH’s father’s premises, that JD was also there, and that they spent some time there. However, she denied JD’s assertions (which were put to TC in cross-examination and later given in evidence by JD) that while they were there, TC attacked JD by pounding her head into a wall; punching her in the ear, causing it to split; ripping out an earring, causing bleeding; and punching her in the face, causing her lip to split. She also denied JD’s assertions that en route to RH’s father’s premises TC was “whacking” herself in the face.

Decision

Reasons for decision

PEEK J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: PEEK J

Full text does not contain this section.