COLOSIMO & ORS. V. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS (NSW) [2006] NSWCA 293

COLOSIMO & ORS. V. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS (NSW) [2006] NSWCA 293

The evidence did not raise self-defence. The appellants gave no evidence of their beliefs or perceptions, the security officers had lawfully requested them to leave and could use reasonable force to bring that about, there was no evidence of any prior attack or risk of harm to the appellants, and the objective circumstances could not support a reasonable possibility that violent conduct by any appellant was necessary for defence or to prevent unlawful deprivation of liberty. The primary judge was correct to hold that self-defence was not raised and no relevant error by the Magistrate was shown.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 November 2006
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal on a Question of Law Concerning Affray and Self Defence / Application for Leave to Appeal Granted; Appeal Determined and Dismissed
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['affray' 'self Defence' 'onus of Proof' 'appeal on Question of Law' 'evidence Sufficient to Raise Self Defence']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure'] ['affray' 'self Defence' 'onus of Proof' 'appeal on Question of Law' 'evidence Sufficient to Raise Self Defence']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal on a Question of Law Concerning Affray and Self Defence / Application for Leave to Appeal Granted; Appeal Determined and Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the evidence before the Magistrate was sufficient to raise self-defence within the meaning of ss.418-419 Crimes Act 1900 (NSW).' 'Whether the primary judge erred in holding that the appellants were unable to raise self-defence in the circumstances of the case.' 'Whether, in the absence of evidence from the appellants, the objective circumstances could support a reasonable possibility that an appellant believed violent conduct was necessary in defence of himself or others or to prevent unlawful deprivation of liberty.']

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence did not raise self-defence. The appellants gave no evidence of their beliefs or perceptions, the security officers had lawfully requested them to leave and could use reasonable force to bring that about, there was no evidence of any prior attack or risk of harm to the appellants, and the objective circumstances could not support a reasonable possibility that violent conduct by any appellant was necessary for defence or to prevent unlawful deprivation of liberty. The primary judge was correct to hold that self-defence was not raised and no relevant error by the Magistrate was shown.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed with costs.']