Sarri v Gresham [1999] FCA 175 (24 February 1999)

Last Updated: 15 April 1999

CATEGORY: NO QUESTION OF PRINCIPLE

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Sarri v Gresham [1999] FCA 175

ANDREW NICHOLAS SARRI V ROBERT JOHN GRESHAM

AG 97 of 1998

JUDGES: SPENDER, HIGGINS, WEINBERG JJ

DATE: 24 FEBRUARY 1999

PLACE: CANBERRA

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY	AG 97 OF 1998

BETWEEN:	ANDREW NICHOLAS SARRI APPELLANT
AND:	ROBERT JOHN GRESHAM RESPONDENT
JUDGES:	SPENDER, HIGGINS, WEINBERG JJ
DATE OF ORDER:	24 FEBRUARY 1999
WHERE MADE:	CANBERRA

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

The appeal be dismissed.

Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY	AG 97 OF 1998

BETWEEN:	ANDREW NICHOLAS SARRI APPELLANT
AND:	ROBERT JOHN GRESHAM RESPONDENT

JUDGES:	SPENDER, HIGGINS, WEINBERG JJ
DATE:	24 FEBRUARY 1999
PLACE:	CANBERRA

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1 The facts or the history of this matter need not be recited.

2 We can understand the concern of Mr Sarri at having on his record a finding that he had assaulted a patron, notwithstanding the fact that the penalty imposed was, of course, disposition under s556A without conviction. But the difficulty is, that on the evidence before him, the learned Magistrate was entitled to find that there had been no punch thrown by Mr Angelos or indeed any action on his part that could reasonably be so construed. There being no punch, there was no foundation then for any possible defence to the charge of assault by reason of either self-defence or of s88 of the Liquor Act, even if that section was applicable. And it seems to us no error, either on the part of the learned Magistrate or on the part of the Chief Justice in hearing an appeal from the learned Magistrate, has been demonstrated.

3 We would for those reasons dismiss the appeal.

I certify that the preceding three (3) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Court.

Associate:

Dated: 24 February 1999

Counsel for the Appellant:	Mr Richard Thomas
Solicitor for the Appellant:	Michael Bartlett
Counsel for the Respondent:	Mr Richard Refshauge
Solicitor for the Respondent:	ACT Director of Public Prosecutions
Date of Hearing:	24 February 1999
Date of Judgment:	24 February 1999