Truman (a pseudonym) v Chapman

[2025] ACTSC 340

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title: 

Truman (a pseudonym) v Chapman

Citation: 

[2025] ACTSC 340

Hearing Dates: 

21 July 2025

Decision Date: 

1 August 2025

Before: 

Kelly AJ

Decision: 

The appeal is dismissed.

Catchwords: 

APPEAL – CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal from ACT Magistrates Court – family violence – choking – appeal against conviction – failure to negate self-defence – errors in assessing complainant’s evidence – whether verdicts are inconsistent – whether verdict is

unreasonable

Cases Cited: 

Liberato v The Queen [1985] HCA 66; 159 CLR 507

Parties: 

Ethan Truman (a pseudonym) (Appellant)
Kara Chapman (Respondent)

Representation: 

Counsel

WDB Buckland (Appellant)
E Wren (Respondent)

Solicitors

Andrew Byrnes Law Group (Appellant)

ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Number: 

SCA 53 of 2024

Decision Under Appeal: 

Court/Tribunal:	Magistrates Court of the ACT
Before:	Special Magistrate Richter
Date of Decision:	19 September 2024
Case Title:	Police v [Redacted]
Court File Number:	231477

KELLY AJ: 

Introduction 

1․ 

This is an appeal from orders made by a Special Magistrate on 19 September 2024.

2․ 

On that date, the Special Magistrate found the appellant guilty of two offences:

aggravated common assault of a child and aggravated choke, suffocate or strangle the

complainant. At the same time, the Magistrate dismissed two further charges of

aggravated common assault both allegedly committed against the complainant.

3․ 

In the notice of appeal dated 17 October 2024, the appellant appealed from the findings

of guilt in respect of both charges. In argument on appeal the appellant no longer

presses the appeal against the finding of guilt on the aggravated assault charge against

the child.

4․ 

The appellant appealed on the following grounds:

(a) The prosecution did not negate the reasonable possibility that the appellant

acted in self-defence.

(b)

The learned Special Magistrate:

1․	Erred in rejecting the oral evidence given by the complainant.
2․	Rejected the oral evidence of the complainant without showing a chain of

logical reasoning justifying the Special Magistrate to do so.

(c) The finding of guilt on CC2022/12063 was inconsistent with the acquittals on

CC2022/12061 and CC2022/12062.

(d)	The learned Special Magistrate reversed the onus of proof.
(e)	The conviction is unreasonable, or cannot be supported, having regard to the

evidence.

(f) That, as a result of a wrong decision on a question of law, or of mixed law and

fact, the conviction was wrong in law and that a substantial miscarriage of justice

has occurred.

(g) That, in all the circumstances of the case, the conviction is unsafe and

unsatisfactory.

5․	The appellant’s counsel acknowledged that although there are seven grounds of appeal,
there is substantial overlap between them and some of those grounds may be
conveniently dealt with together.
6․	The thrust of the appellant’s complaints overall is that the Special Magistrate made
material errors and that his finding on the choking count was unreasonable, cannot be
supported having regard to the evidence, or is unsafe and unsatisfactory.
7․	The appellant submitted that when this Court performs its own assessment of…