R v Wellington & Dessaix [2020] NSWDC 683

R v Wellington & Dessaix [2020] NSWDC 683

The evidence of the complainant was inconsistent and unreliable on key matters going to all charges. The prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt the essential ingredients of common assault (count 1), assault occasioning actual bodily harm by joint enterprise (count 2), and assault occasioning actual bodily harm by Mr Dessaix alone (count 3). The account of Ms Waldron, suggesting the injuries may have resulted from a defensive kick, could not be ruled out, particularly given the complainant's unreliable versions and consistent evidence from Ms Waldron and Michelle Dessaix. The Crown did not discharge its heavy onus, and all accused were acquitted.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 November 2020
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Verdicts of Not Guilty for all counts.
Legal Topics
['assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm' 'common Assault' 'break and Enter With Intent' 'joint Criminal Enterprise']
['criminal Law'] ['assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm' 'common Assault' 'break and Enter With Intent' 'joint Criminal Enterprise']

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 / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Ms Waldron committed common assault against the complainant' 'Whether Ms Waldron and Mr Dessaix acted in a joint criminal enterprise to assault occasioning actual bodily harm' 'Whether Mr Dessaix alone assaulted the complainant occasioning actual bodily harm' 'Whether the evidence of the complainant is reliable and sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt']

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence of the complainant was inconsistent and unreliable on key matters going to all charges. The prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt the essential ingredients of common assault (count 1), assault occasioning actual bodily harm by joint enterprise (count 2), and assault occasioning actual bodily harm by Mr Dessaix alone (count 3). The account of Ms Waldron, suggesting the injuries may have resulted from a defensive kick, could not be ruled out, particularly given the complainant's unreliable versions and consistent evidence from Ms Waldron and Michelle Dessaix. The Crown did not discharge its heavy onus, and all accused were acquitted.

Court Disposition

Verdicts of Not Guilty for all counts.

Orders

  • ['Count 1: Not Guilty' 'Count 2: Not Guilty' 'Count 3: Not Guilty']