Cassimatis v R [2021] NSWDC 765

Cassimatis v R [2021] NSWDC 765

The appeal was allowed because the judge was not persuaded beyond reasonable doubt that the common assault was proved. There were significant inconsistencies in the prosecution evidence, including whether the appellant used his left or right hand, which shoulder was struck, whether the complainant's daughter or Ms Ayan was between the parties, whether the complainant was standing on the roadway or behind the cars, and whether the appellant ran or walked away. The alleged admission that the appellant punched the complainant was found to be incorrect. The appellant's account that he brushed the complainant's hand away because he feared being poked in the face was plausible, raised...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 March 2021
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal From Local Court Conviction and Sentence for Common Assault / District Court Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; conviction and penalty set aside.
Legal Topics
['common Assault' 'appeal Against Conviction and Sentence' 'inconsistencies in Evidence' 'reasonable Doubt' 'self Defence' 'good Character']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure'] ['common Assault' 'appeal Against Conviction and Sentence' 'inconsistencies in Evidence' 'reasonable Doubt' 'self Defence' 'good Character']

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 From Local Court Conviction and Sentence for Common Assault / District Court Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant assaulted Selma Chami by punching or hitting her.' "Whether inconsistencies in the complainant's and independent witness's evidence raised a reasonable doubt." "Whether the appellant's account raised self-defence and whether the Crown negatived self-defence." "Whether the appellant's prior good character should be taken into account in assessing whether the offence was proved beyond reasonable doubt."]

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was allowed because the judge was not persuaded beyond reasonable doubt that the common assault was proved. There were significant inconsistencies in the prosecution evidence, including whether the appellant used his left or right hand, which shoulder was struck, whether the complainant's daughter or Ms Ayan was between the parties, whether the complainant was standing on the roadway or behind the cars, and whether the appellant ran or walked away. The alleged admission that the appellant punched the complainant was found to be incorrect. The appellant's account that he brushed the complainant's hand away because he feared being poked in the face was plausible, raised...

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; conviction and penalty set aside.

Orders

  • ['The appeal is allowed.' 'The conviction and penalty are set aside.']