Vogel v Broomhall - [2019] ACTSC 194

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	Vogel v Broomhall
Citation:	[2019] ACTSC 194
Hearing Date:	15 July 2019
DecisionDate:	30 July 2019
Before:	Murrell CJ
Decision:	Appeal dismissed.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL FROM MAGISTRATES COURT – Appeal against verdict – Whether verdict is unreasonable and cannot be supported by the evidence – Inconsistent and illogical evidence – Inconsistent verdicts – Unlawfulness of arrest.
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) s 222(1) Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) s 361 Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT) s 18(3)
Cases Cited:	Achuthun v Coates (1986) 6 NSWLR 472 DPP (NSW) v Illawarra Cashmart Pty Ltd [2006] NSWSC 343; 67 NSWLR 402 Libke v The Queen [2007] HCA 30; 230 CLR 559 Luketela v Birch [2008] ACTSC 99; 164 ACTR 24 M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487 Peverill v Crampton [2010] ACTSC 79
Parties:	Mark Vogel (Appellant) Lisa Maree Broomhall (Respondent)
Representation:	Counsel Self-represented (Appellant) S Janackovic (Respondent)
Solicitors Self-represented (Appellant) ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent)
File Number:	SCA 8 of 2019
Decision under appeal:	Court/Tribunal: ACT Magistrates Court Before: Magistrate Theakston Date of Decision: 14 December 2018 Case Title: The Police v Vogel Court File Numbers: CC18/10892

Murrell CJ

The Appeal

On 17 December 2018, the Magistrates Court convicted the appellant of the offence that, on 2 August 2018, he obstructed a public official contrary to s 361 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT). The charge related to the circumstances in which the appellant was arrested and handcuffed in a bedroom of his premises.

In relation to the same incident, the appellant was acquitted of charges of assaulting his domestic partner (on the basis of self-defence) and resist arrest. The charge of resisting arrest related to the appellant’s conduct while he was being escorted from his premises to a police vehicle.

The appellant appealed against the verdict of guilty, claiming that it was unreasonable and could not be supported on the evidence. The appellant submitted that:

(a)The evidence of the police officers was inconsistent and illogical.
(b)The finding of guilty was inconsistent with the finding of not guilty on the charge of resist arrest; the latter finding reflected doubt about the reliability of the police evidence due to the differing accounts given by various officers.
(c)The appellant’s own exculpatory account was consistent and believable.
(d)The Magistrate failed to clearly explain his evidentiary findings and the reasons for the different verdicts.

Further, the appellant contended that the Magistrate had failed to consider whether the arrest was lawful. The appellant submitted that, at the time of his arrest, he was not told of the reasons for the arrest as required by s 222(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) and s 18(3) of the Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT).

Nature of Appeal

An appeal from the Magistrates Court is a rehearing on the evidence before the Magistrate, together with any other evidence that the Supreme Court allows: Luketela v Birch [2008] ACTSC 99; 164 ACTR…

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 Vogel v Broomhall

Details

AGLC: Vogel v Broomhall [2019] ACTSC 194
Case: [2019] ACTSC 194
Decision Date: 30 July 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Vogel was convicted by the Magistrates Court of a number of criminal offences, including resisting arrest, contravening a notice to disperse, and entering a prohibited area. Broomhall appeals against his conviction. The appeal raises a number of issues including whether the verdict was unreasonable, whether the verdict was supported by the evidence, and whether the arrest was unlawful. The appeal was dismissed. The appeal was dismissed as the evidence was not considered to be inconsistent or illogical, and the verdict was supported by the evidence. Furthermore, the court found that the arrest was lawful and the appellant’s evidence was not credible.

The appellant argued that the verdict was unreasonable and not supported by the evidence. The appellant also argued that his arrest was unlawful. The court considered the evidence presented and found that there was no inconsistency or illogic in the evidence. The court found that the appellant’s evidence was not credible and that the verdict was supported by the evidence. The court also found that the appellant’s arrest was lawful as he had failed to comply with a notice to disperse and had entered a prohibited area. The court held that the appeal was without merit and dismissed it. The court did not make any further orders.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed.

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.