Spence v R [2020] NSWDC 442

Spence v R [2020] NSWDC 442

The appellate court found that, although some conduct was unpleasant and may have amounted to harassment, the Crown had not proved beyond reasonable doubt the necessary elements of any of the three charges, particularly with respect to the specific intent required for intimidation. The court determined that credibility issues and gaps in evidence left reasonable doubt, and that the procedural posture of the appeal required dismissal of all convictions.

Parties
Appellant: Spence; Respondent: Regina (Crown)
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 August 2020
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / District Court Rehearing (s 18 Crimes (appeal and Review) Act 2001 Appeal From Local Court Conviction)
Outcome
Appeal upheld; convictions set aside and all charges dismissed.
Legal Topics
Use of Carriage Service to Menace, Harass or Offend, Stalking or Intimidation With Intent to Cause Fear, Credibility of Witnesses, Appeals Procedure in Criminal Cases
Criminal Law Domestic Violence Media and Communications Law Use of Carriage Service to Menace, Harass or Offend Stalking or Intimidation With Intent to Cause Fear Credibility of Witnesses Appeals Procedure in Criminal Cases

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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Spence

Appellant

Regina (Crown)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / District Court Rehearing (s 18 Crimes (appeal and Review) Act 2001 Appeal From Local Court Conviction)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the evidence established beyond reasonable doubt the offences of using a carriage service to menace, harass, or offend (s 474.17 Criminal Code) and intimidation with intent to cause fear of harm (s 13 Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act)
  2. 2 The approach to s 18 appeals and the effect of witness credibility on findings of guilt

Ratio Decidendi

The appellate court found that, although some conduct was unpleasant and may have amounted to harassment, the Crown had not proved beyond reasonable doubt the necessary elements of any of the three charges, particularly with respect to the specific intent required for intimidation. The court determined that credibility issues and gaps in evidence left reasonable doubt, and that the procedural posture of the appeal required dismissal of all convictions.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; convictions set aside and all charges dismissed.

Orders

  • Grant leave to the Crown to amend the particulars of counts 2 and 3 as requested.
  • Appeal allowed.