Johnson v R [2022] NSWDC 299

Johnson v R [2022] NSWDC 299

The magistrate's decision was affected by error because findings about alcohol-fuelled conduct were not open on the evidence, an adverse inference was drawn from the appellant's exercise of the right to silence contrary to s 89 Evidence Act 1995, and the circumstantial evidence reasoning misstated the law. On independent review, the complainant's DVEC account and Ms Lancaster's contemporaneous evidence proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant threw the car keys at the complainant and hit her face. However, the destroy property charge was not proved beyond reasonable doubt because it was reasonably open that the pot broke accidentally and the appellant lacked the requisite intent...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 July 2022
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Conviction / District Court Appeal From Downing Centre Local Court Under S 18 Crimes (appeal and Review) Act 2001
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part.
Legal Topics
['appeal Against Conviction' 'common Assault' 'destroying Property' 'circumstantial Evidence' 'right to Silence' 'good Character']
['criminal Law' 'evidence' 'criminal Appeals'] ['appeal Against Conviction' 'common Assault' 'destroying Property' 'circumstantial Evidence' 'right to Silence' '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 Against Conviction / District Court Appeal From Downing Centre Local Court Under S 18 Crimes (appeal and Review) Act 2001

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the magistrate's decision was affected by factual, legal or discretionary error on an appeal under s 18 Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001." 'Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant committed common assault by throwing car keys at the complainant and hitting her face.' 'Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant intentionally or recklessly destroyed property by breaking a ceramic pot.' "Whether the magistrate erred by drawing an adverse inference from the appellant's exercise of his right to silence contrary to s 89 Evidence Act 1995." 'Whether the magistrate misstated or misapplied the principles governing circumstantial evidence.']

Ratio Decidendi

The magistrate's decision was affected by error because findings about alcohol-fuelled conduct were not open on the evidence, an adverse inference was drawn from the appellant's exercise of the right to silence contrary to s 89 Evidence Act 1995, and the circumstantial evidence reasoning misstated the law. On independent review, the complainant's DVEC account and Ms Lancaster's contemporaneous evidence proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant threw the car keys at the complainant and hit her face. However, the destroy property charge was not proved beyond reasonable doubt because it was reasonably open that the pot broke accidentally and the appellant lacked the requisite intent...

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part.

Orders

  • ['Appeal allowed in part.' 'The conviction for sequence 1 and the penalty imposed by the magistrate are set aside.' 'I will hear the parties on the sentence appeal relating to sequence 3.']