AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
District Court 22 October 2025

R v WS

[2025] NSWDC 462

Assault & violenceDomestic & family violencePublic order & justice offences
CRIME — COMMON ASSAULT I NTIMIDATION CRIME ACCUSED FOUND GUILTY AT JURY TRIAL COMPLAINT EVIDENCE ACCUSED’S EVIDENCE NOT ACCEPTED

Citation: R v WS [2025] NSWDC 462
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 22 October 2025
Judge: Fitzsimmons SC DCJ

Background

The accused stood trial on a 12-count indictment arising from conduct toward his domestic partner during a relationship that lasted from approximately May 2021 to March 2022. The couple lived together at a property in Lake Illawarra and had one child together, born in February 2022. The offences included allegations of assault, intimidation, and other acts of physical and threatened violence.

Following a nine-day trial in which both the complainant and the accused gave evidence, a jury of 11 returned unanimous verdicts. The jury found the accused guilty on eight counts and not guilty on four counts.

A number of related but uncharged acts had been placed before the jury as tendency evidence, and those acts had separately been charged and referred to the District Court on a certificate under s 166 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986. At the conclusion of the trial, the Crown applied for the court to determine guilt on those s 166 certificate charges under s 167 of the same Act. The accused did not oppose the application but contested that guilt had been established beyond reasonable doubt.

  • Whether the court, sitting as the tribunal of fact on the s 166 certificate charges, was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the accused's guilt on each of the related charges.
  • Whether the complainant's evidence was sufficiently honest and accurate to support convictions, given that the Crown's case largely depended on her account.
  • Whether complaint evidence and other corroborating material supported the complainant's account of the various incidents.
  • Whether the accused's denials and alternative explanations raised a reasonable doubt as to any of the charges.

Decision

Fitzsimmons SC DCJ directed herself on the standard criminal directions applicable to a fact-finder, including the presumption of innocence, the Crown's burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt, and the proper approach to drawing inferences from proven facts. Her Honour noted that, where the Crown's case rested largely or exclusively on the complainant's evidence, a conviction required satisfaction beyond reasonable doubt that the complainant was both honest and accurate.

Her Honour assessed the complainant as a reliable witness and did not accept the accused's evidence. This assessment was consistent with the jury's verdicts on the indictment counts. Complaint evidence, being out-of-court representations made to others about the circumstances of the offending, was also available in relation to several charges and was treated as capable of supporting both the occurrence of the offences and the truthfulness of the complainant's account at trial.

On each of the six incidents giving rise to the certificate charges, including a coffee cup incident, an iron incident, a water bottle incident, a Father's Day incident, an incident on the first night home from hospital after the birth of the child, and an incident on the day the complainant left the accused, the court found the evidence sufficient to establish the relevant elements beyond reasonable doubt. In relation to the final incident, the court specifically rejected the accused's account that the complainant's departure was a calm, pre-arranged arrangement, accepting instead that the accused's behaviour was designed to cause the complainant a reasonable apprehension of injury.

The court found the accused guilty on all seven charges referred on the s 166 certificate: five counts of common assault and two counts of intimidation.

Orders Made

  • Accused found guilty of sequence 1: common assault (11 May 2021, "coffee cup" incident), contrary to s 61 of the Crimes Act 1900.
  • Accused found guilty of sequence 2: intimidation (7 July 2021, "iron" incident), contrary to s 13(1) of the Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007.
  • Accused found guilty of sequence 3: common assault (23 July 2021, "water bottle" incident), contrary to s 61 of the Crimes Act 1900.
  • Accused found guilty of sequence 5: common assault (23 July 2021, "water bottle" incident), contrary to s 61 of the Crimes Act 1900.
  • Accused found guilty of sequence 6: common assault (5 September 2021, "Father's Day" incident), contrary to s 61 of the Crimes Act 1900.
  • Accused found guilty of sequence 7: common assault (8-9 February 2022, first night home from hospital), contrary to s 61 of the Crimes Act 1900.
  • Accused found guilty of sequence 10: intimidation (2 March 2022, day the complainant left the accused), contrary to s 13(1) of the Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007.

Key Takeaways

  • The District Court confirmed that s 166 and s 167 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 provide a mechanism for related charges to be determined by the court at the conclusion of a jury trial, without a separate trial, provided the accused has the opportunity to contest guilt.
  • Where a Crown case depends substantially on a complainant's testimony, the fact-finder must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the complainant is both honest and accurate before a conviction can be recorded, even on certificate charges.
  • Complaint evidence, being prior representations made to third parties about the circumstances of offending, is capable of serving a dual purpose: supporting that the offence occurred as described, and bolstering the complainant's credibility at the hearing.
  • A finding that the accused's evidence was not credible, when consistent with the jury's earlier verdicts on related counts, can support the fact-finder's acceptance of the complainant's account across multiple certificate charges.
  • Under s 13(1) of the Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007, intimidation requires that the accused's conduct was intended to cause fear of physical harm; conduct such as head-butting walls, slamming objects, and using a knife to slash photographs in the complainant's presence was found sufficient to establish that element.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation:
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 61 (common assault)
- Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), ss 166, 167 (certificate charges procedure)
- Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW), s 13(1) (intimidation)

Cases cited: No cases were cited in the judgment.