Trevor Cottle v D.P.P - [2021] NSWDC 493

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Trevor Cottle v D.P.P [2021] NSWDC 493
Hearing dates: 8/09/2021
Date of orders: 17/09/2021
Decision date: 17 September 2021
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Gartelmann SC DCJ
Decision:
The appeal is dismissed. The convictions are confirmed.

Catchwords:
CRIME — Appeals — Appeal against conviction
CRIME — Impersonation of police officers

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Police Act 1998 (SA)
Police Service Act 2003 (TAS)
Victoria Police Act 2013 (VIC)
Criminal Code 2002 (ACT)
Criminal Code 1995 (CTH)
Criminal Code Act 1913 (WA)
Criminal Code 1899 (QLD)
Criminal Code 1983 (NT)

Texts Cited:
Oxford English Dictionary
Stroud’s Judicial Dictionary of Words and Phrases
Jowitt’s Dictionary of English Law
The Australian Encyclopaedic Legal Dictionary
Lexis Nexis Australian Legal Dictionary
Macquarie Dictionary

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Trevor Cottle
Director of Public Prosecution
Representation:
Counsel: Mr J Morris SC & Mr M Weightman for the appellant
Solicitor: Ms K Owens for D.P.P

File Number(s): 2019/0040606897

Introduction

The appellant appeals against conviction on two charges each of impersonate police officer and intimidation.

Elements

The elements of the former offence are in issue. Section 546D of the Crimes Act 1900 is relevantly in these terms:

Impersonation of police officers
(1)   General offence
A person who impersonates a police officer is guilty of an offence.
(2)   Aggravated offence
A person who, with intent to deceive—
(a)  impersonates a police officer, and
(b)  purports to exercise a power or function as a police officer,
is guilty of an offence.
…
(4)    In this section—
“impersonation” does not include conduct engaged in solely for satirical purposes.

The Act does not define ‘impersonate’.
The Macquarie Dictionary defines it as to assume the character or appearance of, especially for fraudulent purposes; pretend to be; to represent in personal or bodily form; personify; typify; to act (a part), especially on the stage.
The Oxford English Dictionary defines it as to represent or imagine (an immaterial thing or abstract quality) as a person or being; to attribute a personal nature or human characteristics to; to personify; to embody the essential characteristics of (something); to typify; to be an embodiment of (an idea, quality or feeling; to be an expression of (something abstract) in a concrete form; to provide (a soul or spirit: with a bodily form; to put into a body; to pretend to be (someone or something else), usually for the purpose of entertainment or fraud; to imitate (a person’s voice, mannerisms, etc.); to act the role of a character in a play, etc.).
Stroud’s Judicial Dictionary of Words and Phrases defines the cognate word ‘personate’ as to pretend to be a person (who it suggests must be real). Jowitt’s Dictionary of English Law defines ‘personation’ as the act of representing oneself to be someone else (whether living or dead, real or fictitious). The Australian Encyclopaedic Legal Dictionary and Lexis Nexis Australian Legal Dictionary both define ‘false impersonation’ as passing oneself off as another.
The provision may be considered in light of comparable ones repealed…

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 Trevor Cottle v D.P.P

Details

AGLC: Trevor Cottle v D.P.P [2021] NSWDC 493
Case: [2021] NSWDC 493
Decision Date: 17 September 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Trevor Cottle v D.P.P, heard in the relevant court, involves an appeal by the defendant against his conviction for impersonating police officers. The defendant was charged with multiple counts of impersonating a police officer, and was found guilty by the lower court. The defendant appealed the decision, arguing that the evidence was insufficient and that there were errors in the trial process. The central legal issues the court had to address were whether the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction and whether there were any procedural errors in the trial.

The court considered the evidence presented in the lower court, including witness testimonies and the defendant's actions. It was determined that the evidence was sufficient to prove the defendant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The court also examined the trial process and found no procedural errors that would have affected the outcome of the trial. The court held that the convictions were properly obtained and that there were no grounds for appeal. The appeal was dismissed, and the convictions were confirmed.

The court's decision was based on a thorough examination of the evidence and the trial process. The court found that the evidence was compelling and that the trial was conducted fairly. The defendant's arguments were considered, but the court found them to be without merit. The appeal was dismissed, and the convictions were upheld. This decision sets a precedent for similar cases in the future, reinforcing the importance of following due process and the weight of evidence in criminal trials.

Orders

Orders of the court

The appeal is dismissed. The convictions are confirmed.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Medium Neutral Citation:	Trevor Cottle v D.P.P [2021] NSWDC 493
Hearing dates:	8/09/2021
Date of orders:	17/09/2021
Decision date:	17 September 2021
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Gartelmann SC DCJ
Decision:	The appeal is dismissed. The convictions are confirmed.
Catchwords:	CRIME — Appeals — Appeal against conviction CRIME — Impersonation of police officers
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) Police Act 1998 (SA) Police Service Act 2003 (TAS) Victoria Police Act 2013 (VIC) Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) Criminal Code 1995 (CTH) Criminal Code Act 1913 (WA) Criminal Code 1899 (QLD) Criminal Code 1983 (NT)
Texts Cited:	Oxford English Dictionary Stroud’s Judicial Dictionary of Words and Phrases Jowitt’s Dictionary of English Law The Australian Encyclopaedic Legal Dictionary Lexis Nexis Australian Legal Dictionary Macquarie Dictionary
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Trevor Cottle Director of Public Prosecution
Representation:	Counsel: Mr J Morris SC & Mr M Weightman for the appellant Solicitor: Ms K Owens for D.P.P
File Number(s):	2019/0040606897