Mack v R [2021] NSWDC 645

District Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Mack v R [2021] NSWDC 645 Hearing dates: 21 September 2021 Date of orders: 21 September 2021 Decision date: 21 September 2021 Jurisdiction: Criminal Before: Neilson DCJ Decision: Matter dealt with under s10(1)(a). Catchwords: Criminal Law – Appeal from Local Court – AVO prohibited contact directly between a man and his former wife – Couple had 2 children – Exchange of text messages about them – Man believed AVO had expired – Local Court accepted Appellant (man) had an honest belief that AVO had expired, but that belief was not reasonable – Alleged breaches were purely technical – Matter dealt with under s10(1)(a). Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1990 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Patrick Fordham Mack – Appellant Regina – Crown Representation: G.W. Harrison – Appellant D. Laird – Crown File Number(s): 2020/00237092 Publication restriction: Nil. Decision under appeal Court or tribunal: Local Court of NSW Jurisdiction: Criminal Date of Decision: 06 April 2021 Before: Reiss LCM File Number(s): 2020/00237092

Judgment 1. HIS HONOUR: This is an appeal from a conviction recorded by Magistrate Reiss sitting in the Local Court at Burwood on 6 April 2021. The appellant Mr Patrick Fordham Mack was charged that between 5.20pm on 5 August 2020 and 9am on 12 August 2020 at Croydon in this State he did knowingly contravene a prohibition/restriction specified in an Order. 2. The Order was a final Apprehended Violence Order made by the Local Court at Manly on 24 May 2019. The order was for a period of two years from that date. The persons in need of protection were Alison Lott and James Leaver. One of the prohibitions contained in the order was this: "You must not approach Alison Lott or James Leaver or contact them in any way unless the contact is through a lawyer." 1. The appellant raised a defence of an honest and reasonable mistake of fact. His Honour held that there was an honest mistake of fact but that mistake was not a reasonable one. He convicted the appellant and imposed a fine of $500.