Giddings v Director of Public Prosecutions [2008] NSWSC 169

Giddings v Director of Public Prosecutions [2008] NSWSC 169

The court held there was no criminal trespass by the complainant; therefore, self-defence under s 418 of the Crimes Act did not arise. The complainant did not fall within any category under s 103(1) of the Liquor Act, so Mr Giddings could not rely on that statute. Even assuming a common law power to eject existed, the magistrate found beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Giddings' act of throwing water was not a reasonable use of force. No error of law was identified in the magistrate’s approach or findings.

Parties
Applicant: Peter Giddings; Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 March 2008
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Assault, Self Defence, Power of Licensee to Eject Person, Criminal Trespass, Licensed Premises, Reasonable Force
Criminal Law Assault Self Defence Power of Licensee to Eject Person Criminal Trespass Licensed Premises Reasonable Force

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 3 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter Giddings

Applicant

Director of Public Prosecutions

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's act of throwing water constituted reasonable force to eject the complainant from licensed premises
  2. 2 Whether the magistrate erred in law regarding the use of force and relevant circumstances of the complainant
  3. 3 Whether the statutory or common law power to eject applied in the circumstances

Ratio Decidendi

The court held there was no criminal trespass by the complainant; therefore, self-defence under s 418 of the Crimes Act did not arise. The complainant did not fall within any category under s 103(1) of the Liquor Act, so Mr Giddings could not rely on that statute. Even assuming a common law power to eject existed, the magistrate found beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Giddings' act of throwing water was not a reasonable use of force. No error of law was identified in the magistrate’s approach or findings.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • Summons dismissed.