The Supreme Court dismissed an appeal against conviction for aggravated property damage under s 116(3) of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), finding no material error in the magistrate's factual findings. The Court held that the magistrate was entitled to reject the appellant's account of accidental damage where his evidence was unclear as to the mechanism by which his knee contacted the door, and to find recklessness established on the basis of the substantial force applied, the appellant's anger, and his persistence in trying to open the door against the complainant's wishes. Although the magistrate erred in relying on the appellant's post-incident comment about the door being flimsy as evidence of his state of mind at the time, this error was not material given the sufficiency of the remaining evidence supporting recklessness.
The full text is available to signed-in members.