Mannix v R [2020] NSWDC 34

District Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Mannix v R [2020] NSWDC 34 Hearing dates: 21 January 2020 Date of orders: 24 January 2020 Decision date: 24 January 2020 Jurisdiction: Criminal Before: Hatzistergos DCJ Decision: (1) The appeal is allowed. (2) The orders of the Local Court are set aside. (3) The Offender is found not guilty. Catchwords: APPEAL – Appeal from Local Court against conviction – Assault on prisoner by prison officer – CCTV evidence – Acting in self-defence – Where Appellant of previous good character and officer for 35 years – Incident occurs in context of prison industrial strike Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 61, 418 Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 (NSW), s 18 Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 38 Cases Cited: AG v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) [2015] NSWCA 218 Charara v The Queen (2006) 164 A Crim R 39, Dyason v Butterworth [2015] NSWCCA 52 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Regina (Crown) Tracey Mannix (Appellant) Representation: Counsel: R. Buttin (Crown) D. McMahon (Appellant)

Solicitors: Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) File Number(s): 2018/359672

Judgment 1. This is an appeal from a decision in the Local Court at Burwood which on 30 August 2019 found the Appellant guilty of one offence of committing common assault contrary to s 61 of the Crimes Act 1900. The relevant principles by which one can appeal to the District Court from a decision of the Local Court on conviction are discussed in numerous cases referable to s 18 of the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 (NSW). [1] 2. Specifically, in AG v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW), [2] Basten JA stated that the Appellant is required to demonstrate some legal, factual or discretionary error for the appeal to succeed. The term "error", however, has no precise meaning and requires the appellate Judge to be satisfied that the judgment under appeal is wrong and should be corrected. How that satisfaction is achieved will depend on a range of factors relevant to the specific cases. [3] Simpson J, following an extensive review of authorities, stated that in her view it was not necessary, before the appellate power of the District Court is exercised, that there be error of law, fact or discretion shown. Her Honour went on to hold that the powers of the District Court are exercisable regardless of error and on the basis of the District Court Judge's own assessment of the evidence. [4]