Citation: R v Joshua Goddard [2013] NSWDC 204
Court: District Court of NSW
Date: 18 October 2013
Judge: Mahony SC DCJ
Background
The appellant was convicted in the Local Court of intimidating a police officer without causing actual bodily harm, contrary to s 60(1) of the Crimes Act 1900. The charge arose from an incident in the early hours of 16 September 2012 at Gymea, outside a nightclub. Leading Senior Constable Inglis alleged that the appellant shouted threatening words at him during a confrontation in a car park.
The Magistrate convicted the appellant on one of five alleged particulars of intimidation: that the appellant stood directly in front of the officer and shouted, at close range, words to the effect of threatening to kill and assault the officers present. A sentence of six months imprisonment, already served, was imposed.
On appeal to the District Court, the appellant conceded that he had said the words in question. The sole issue became whether those words actually caused Leading Senior Constable Inglis to experience fear or apprehension for his personal safety, as required for the offence.
Legal Issues
- Whether the Crown proved beyond reasonable doubt that Leading Senior Constable Inglis was actually intimidated (that is, experienced fear or apprehension for his personal safety) as a result of the appellant's words
- Whether the appellant had the requisite mens rea, namely, an intention to intimidate the officer
Decision
Issue 1: Actual intimidation of the officer
The District Court undertook a re-hearing on the transcript of evidence from below, applying the principles in Charara v R, and recognising the Magistrate's advantage in assessing witness credibility. The court was not persuaded beyond reasonable doubt that Leading Senior Constable Inglis was actually intimidated by the relevant words.
Several features of the evidence combined to undermine the Crown case on this point. CCTV footage showed the officer advancing towards the appellant while the appellant walked backwards, a dynamic inconsistent with a claim of genuine fear. In his statement, the officer described stepping towards the appellant "to prevent" a feared assault, and his evidence about feeling intimidated related to different words spoken just before the arrest, not to the particularised words forming the charge. The officer did not tell the appellant at the time of arrest that intimidation was the reason for it, and gave no evidence explaining how the relevant words affected his conduct.
Issue 2: Mens rea
The court found that the offensive words formed part of a continuum of abusive language directed at the police. While the words were plainly offensive, the court was not satisfied that the appellant intended to intimidate the officer. Further, drawing on Vella v Director of Public Prosecutions, the court confirmed that in the absence of any proved effect on the officer, the offence of intimidation could not be established.
Orders Made
- Appeal upheld
- Charge under s 60(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 dismissed
Key Takeaways
- A conviction for intimidating a police officer under s 60(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 requires proof that the complainant officer actually experienced fear or apprehension for their personal safety; threatening words alone are insufficient.
- Where an officer's own conduct at the time (such as advancing toward the accused) and their evidence in chief are inconsistent with a genuine claim of fear, a court may decline to find actual intimidation even when the threatening words are not in dispute.
- The District Court confirmed the approach from R v Manton that the prosecution must prove the words actually caused fear or apprehension, and from Vella v DPP that no intimidation can be established without proof of such an effect on the complainant.
- Proof of mens rea is a distinct requirement: the court must be satisfied that the accused intended to intimidate the officer, not merely that offensive or threatening language was used.
- On a District Court appeal by way of re-hearing on the transcript, the appellate court forms its own view of the facts while acknowledging the Magistrate's advantage in assessing credibility of witnesses heard in the lower court.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation
- Crimes Act 1900
Cases
- Charara v R [2006] NSW CCA 244
- R v Manton (2002) 132 AcrimR 249; (2002) NSWCCA 316
- Linley v Rutter [1981] QB128
- Woodley v Boyd [2001] NSWCA 35
- State of New South Wales v Nominal Defendant [2009] NSWCA 225
- Meller v Low (2000) 48 NSWLR 517
- Vella v Director of Public Prosecutions (2005) NSWSC 97
- R v Manton [2002] NSWCCA 316