Armand-Iskak v R

Facts 6The complainant was walking down King Street, Newtown, at around 2.00am on 13 January 2012. The complainant first saw the applicant walking towards her. He looked at her; turned as they passed each other, with the complainant seeking to avoid making eye contact. The complainant heard him stop walking and turn back towards her. 7The applicant walked up behind the complainant, placed his arm around her neck and choked her. The complainant fell to the ground and blacked out. 8The applicant transferred her into an alley. The complainant, having regained consciousness, fought the applicant and scratched him during the transfer. 9Once in the alley, the applicant threw the complainant to the ground and lay on top of her. A number of persons living nearby heard the commotion and attempted, initially by shouting, to prevent the assault. One such person called Emergency Services. 10The applicant left the alley, returned to King Street, Newtown, and hailed a taxi. 11The residents nearby, or some of them, went to the alley and tended to the complainant. The complainant appeared distressed and was bleeding from an injury above her eye. 12It is uncontested that the applicant did not know the complainant before the assault. It is also uncontested that the applicant approached the complainant from behind and put his right arm around her. Further, there is no contest that the complainant tried to remove the applicant's arm from around her. There is some issue as to whether the right arm, to which reference is made above, was put around the complainant's shoulder or neck, and at the appeal hearing much was sought to be made of the evidence in relation to this discrepancy or inconsistency between the complainant's evidence and that of the applicant.

Evidence at Trial 13The complainant gave evidence of all of the matters recited in the fact summary above, except that which occurred during the time that she had blacked out. The complainant said she was "punching, hitting, scratching, anything I could, to try and make him let go", but is not sure if she made contact (Transcript, page 7, line 13-15). She did not recall inflicting the particular scratch/nail injuries on the applicant, but otherwise testified to all of the facts above. There was independent evidence of some of the matters on which the Crown relied. 14Mr Samuel Dalley saw the complainant fall, saw the applicant pick her up and turn towards Queen Street, noticed that the complainant had left her bag on the ground, took off his ear phones and crossed the road to pick up the bag. 15After he removed the ear phones, he heard a female voice saying, "Get off me". He then saw the applicant run towards him and pass him in the street. Mr Dalley went to the assistance of the complainant and returned her bag. The complainant swore at him. Mr Dalley noticed that the complainant had an injury to her head and was bleeding. The complainant seemed angry, shaky and frantic. 16Given the emphasis placed by counsel at trial and the applicant before the Court on the alleged inconsistency of Mr Dalley's evidence with that of the complainant, some further short explanation is required. As is clear from the foregoing, Mr Dalley was walking along King Street with earphones in his ears. 17He first noticed the complainant when she fell to the ground. It was the fall to the ground that caught his attention. As a consequence, Mr Dalley's evidence is not directly concerned with the initial attack and alleged choking. It is consistent otherwise with the complainant's evidence and, at least to some degree, with the evidence of the applicant as to the later events in the incident. 18Mr Max Rolon lived on the first floor of an apartment building, the window of which looked out onto the alley at which the events were said to have occurred. He heard a scream of "help me", which seemed like it was coming from directly below his window. 19He saw a person lying on top of another in the alleyway and could hear a female voice saying "Help me. Get off me". Mr Rolon saw the applicant rise onto all fours. He was wearing clothing consistent with that described by Mr Dalley. Mr Rolon screamed out to the applicant and immediately dressed and went downstairs. Mr Rolon described the complainant as in emotional distress with a bleeding eyebrow. 20Despite the submissions in this Court, Mr Rolon's evidence (and Ms Flockhart's evidence) is consistent with the evidence of the complainant and directly inconsistent with the applicant's evidence that he did not lie on top of the complainant. 21Ms Kirsty Flockhart was a neighbour who also heard the noise. She lived with Mr Rolon and confirmed his evidence, or that part of it which related to the events before Mr Rolon left the apartment to tend to the complainant. Ms Flockhart called the Emergency Services. After calling Emergency Services, Ms Flockhart also went to the alley and described the complainant as "very upset, really disoriented, really upset, she was crying and had lots of cuts and visible injuries". 22Mr Anthony Fleming was another neighbour awoken by the noise in the alley. He too heard a female voice shouting for assistance and went to the aid of the complainant. 23Mr Richard Scott seems to have heard events earlier than those that occurred in the alley. He heard a female voice saying words to the effect of: "No I don't want to come with you" or "I don't want to come to your house". He was not sure of the exact words. 24About 35 to 40 seconds later, he heard incoherent screaming. He went onto his balcony and saw a man across the road, who called out "Call the police". The man picked up a large handbag and walked towards the woman. Mr Scott then also went to the assistance of the complainant. He described her as having a mark on her face and looking "very distressed". He did not see the applicant. 25There was police evidence, the most relevant aspect of which is the evidence of an interview of the applicant, being an electronically recorded interview of a suspected person (ERISP), which is Exhibit 8 in the proceedings. The ERISP was generally to the effect that the applicant did not wish to answer questions and gave, in response to some questions, an alleged alibi. The police asked the applicant why his DNA was found under the complainant's fingers, to which the applicant replied: "You've got me red-handed". He then showed the police his right forearm with four bits of skin missing. He then said "I've pretty much conceded the whole case" and said he did not wish to answer anything further. Notwithstanding the last mentioned attitude, the applicant, later in questioning, admitted he was the person shown on CCTV footage and, in answer to a question put to him by police that he choked the complainant and dragged her into Queen Street, the applicant responded by saying: "Correct". 26A DNA sample was taken from the applicant and it matched the DNA found under the fingernails of the complainant. The CCTV footage showed the applicant at a nightclub, standing outside the club, walking down George Street and a few other streets, before arriving at King Street and crossing paths with the complainant. It also showed the applicant hailing a taxi and leaving in the taxi. 27Evidence was also adduced from other police and from experts, which it is unnecessary to recite in these reasons. It is desirable to summarise the evidence of Dr Rosemary Isaacs, a General Practitioner specialising in sexual assault. Dr Isaacs examined the complainant, who was not, at that time, in physical distress, but her eyes were red, she had limited neck movement and there was a red mark on the right side of her neck. The complainant had a small abrasion above her right eye. There were five bruises and two abrasions on her right arm; there was an abrasion on her left arm; there was an area of tenderness on her back. 28Dr Isaacs described these injuries as consistent with the history given by the complainant of the man grabbing her around the neck with his elbow; her struggling; blacking out and being dragged by him. 29Dr Isaacs opined that the application of pressure to the complainant's neck with the crook of the applicant's elbow could have caused her to lose consciousness. Dr Isaacs said that there would not necessarily be bruising on the neck. Nor would she necessarily expect it. Dr Isaacs saw the complainant some 14 to 15 hours after the alleged incident had occurred. 30Dr Duflou is the Chief Forensic Pathologist of the Department of Forensic Medicine in Sydney and gave evidence for the applicant. His evidence was, it seems, affected by an understanding that the choking, if it were to have occurred, was by the hands of the applicant. When cross-examined on the basis that the strangulation occurred by the crook of the elbow, Dr Duflou's evidence as to the expectation of reddening and fullness in the complainant's face or haemorrhages in the eyes and fingernail impressions on the neck was significantly qualified. As a consequence, there was little or no inconsistency between the medical practitioners. 31The applicant gave evidence as to his use of prescription drugs (Zoloft) and the evidence otherwise admitted identity and basic facts, although did not admit the offence. 32The applicant gave evidence of seeing the complainant, following her in the street and perceiving that she was looking at him through the reflection of a window on a number of occasions. 33The applicant then testified to the fact that he went over to the complainant and "gave her a hug"; placed his right arm around her shoulders with her neck in the crook of his arm. She was startled. The applicant denied choking her or squeezing her arm but realised that she was scratching his arm so he pulled his arm back forcefully. The complainant stumbled and fell onto the pavement. 34The applicant kneeled beside the complainant and tried to grab her nails and remove any DNA evidence. 35The applicant testified that he removed the complainant to the alley because the light was brighter and he could better remove the remnants of his DNA. He heard and saw the person across the road, while he was in Queen Street and heard and saw the commotion by residents. The applicant denied any sexual intent towards the complainant and sought to give innocent explanations for the inculpatory answers given to police during the ERISP.

Argument on Appeal 36The applicant for leave to appeal has filed with the Court two lengthy sets of handwritten submissions, one of them received on 15 August 2014 of approximately 82 pages and the second sent on 2 December 2014 of some 83 pages. Neither of those handwritten submissions specify or clarify the manner in which it is said the verdict was unreasonable. Nor do they detail the manner in which it is said, or the reason it is said, the sentence is manifestly excessive. 37Because the applicant for leave to appeal is unrepresented, more attention has been paid to the evidence in the proceedings than might be warranted by the content of the written submissions. Further, the applicant at the hearing of the appeal, at least through cross-examination, seemed to indicate some areas on which he was relying for the unreasonable verdict ground. 38During the course of the written submissions, the applicant relied upon "grounds of appeal" not contained in the appeal to the Court, which I have taken to be particulars of the ground of appeal. Those particulars were that: there was a lack of reasonable particulars provided pre-trial by the prosecution in respect of how the offence had been effected, as a consequence of which, the specific acts which gave rise to the allegation were effectively concealed and Legal Aid appointed defence counsel failed in their preparation of a defence; the jury's verdict was unreasonable and cannot be supported by the evidence; Legal Aid appointed defence counsel proved most incompetent not appreciating any of the applicant's pre-trial verbal and written instructions for an appropriate line of enquiry to be pursued of the respective Crown witnesses, whereby a verdict of acquittal was accordingly lost to the applicant; there was no fair trial according to law; the Crown prosecutor failed to put, in cross-examination of the applicant, the allegation of the manner in which the offence was said to be committed, which, it is said, was physically impossible; there was an incorrect summary by the trial judge of an expert witness's testimony; and, the ERISP ought not have been admitted. 39Ultimately, as seems to have been put in cross-examination during this appeal of the applicant's counsel at trial and instructing solicitor at trial, all of the particulars and the unreasonable verdict allegation derive from what is alleged to have been the physical impossibility of the applicant sustaining the scratch marks in the manner which was described by the Crown. 40As a consequence, the expert evidence was said to be incorrect, the trial was said to be unfair, the Crown did not put to the applicant the precise manner in which the injury to the complainant occurred (and therefore how the injury to his arm occurred), there was a lack of particulars of the precise mechanism by which the injury to the complainant occurred and, as a consequence of all of that, the jury's verdict was said to be unreasonable and not supported by the evidence. 41The injury to the complainant to which the foregoing refers is the choking and rendering unconsciousness. The injury to the applicant is a series of fingernail marks in the applicant's right forearm. The applicant submits that the location of the injury to his forearm on the distal edge (on top of that edge of the forearm closest to the radius bone) and the placing of the scratch marks at that point is inconsistent with the forearm being in the position described by the complainant and described by the Crown in its opening and closing addresses. 42Nothing was put at the hearing of the appeal relating to the appeal against sentence. There is little in the written submissions relevant to it. To the extent that anything by way of submission is put in writing, the submissions concentrate on the fact that the sexual offence, being indecent assault, only carries a maximum penalty of 5 years' imprisonment. Yet, the sentence imposed upon the applicant was for a non-parole period of 7 years. 43The applicant does not differentiate between the indecent assault as an element of a much more serious offence and the maximum sentence for indecent assault itself.

Consideration 44Essentially, the applicant's case on appeal depends upon the location of the injuries to his arm and the purported amended discrepancy in the description of how those injuries were sustained. 45Because of the applicant's perception of inconsistency in evidence and impossibility of occurrence, the applicant accuses his counsel and solicitor at trial of incompetence or failure to put the instructions given to them, or both. None of that allegation is made out. 46Ms Mayne, the solicitor at trial, gave evidence in the appeal. Her evidence was compelling and displayed a remarkable knowledge of the facts of the case and organisation of material provided, at length, by the applicant to the Legal Aid Commission. Those notes and that evidence confirm that the trial was conducted wholly in accordance with the instructions of the applicant. 47Counsel in the trial, Mr Averre, likewise, while not having access to notes of the trial, displayed a remarkable memory of a trial that occurred two years earlier and the details of the examination, cross-examination and address that occurred during the course of the trial. His memory of the instructions received from the applicant was also compelling. 48Contrary to the applicant's submissions, each of the applicant's solicitor and barrister dealt with all of their instructions appropriately and competently. A study of the transcript at trial discloses that cross-examination was competent and appropriate and tested all that was necessary to test in order to disclose, to the best advantage, the applicant's instructions. 49The fundamental difficulty faced by the applicant is that his case depends upon a perception by him of that which the Crown and the complainant said about the injuries to his arm and the manner in which he "choked" the complainant. That perception was, in significant respects, incorrect. 50The complainant was aware that she had scratched (or dug her nails into) the applicant's forearm, but was unsure, or did not recollect, precisely when it was that injury was inflicted. Thus, the evidence of the applicant that it was inflicted at the time that the arm was on the "shoulders" and/or "neck" was uncontroverted. It also occurred just before, or at the time that, the complainant was rendered unconscious. 51Thus, there is no discrepancy in the timing of the infliction of the injury to his forearm. 52Secondly, and far more importantly, the applicant's recollection of the Crown address is significantly in error. During the Crown opening (AB201, transcript 28.11.12, page 3) the incident was relevantly described in the following way: "She [the complainant] will tell the Court I expect that when she got to the next corner, which is Queen Street, a fairly quiet street, the man came up behind her. He put his arm around her throat and proceeded to apply pressure to her. He said nothing. At this stage [the complainant] had a large shoulder strap bag on her shoulder. The Crown says that the accused applied so much pressure that she blacked out momentarily, causing her to drop the bag. The accused made no attempt to take the bag or look in the bag and indeed ignored the bag and dragged her down Queen Street..." 53In the closing address (AB401, Transcript 4.12.12, page 28) the Crown said: "And she [the complainant] did glance in the window when she realised that he was following her and she started to go faster and the accused, he thinks that this is some sort of amorous engagement, runs after her. And the Crown says he put her in a headlock with his arms squeezing, applying quite some force. She drops her bag, he has no interest in her bag. He makes no demand for money or property. Doesn't look in the bag. His interest is in her. She passes out. You might have thought that the scuff marks on the top of the boots where he dragged her, she said that those scuff marks weren't there before this altercation." Later in the closing address, the Crown says (AB402, Transcript 4.12.12, page 29): "The accused has scratch marks on his right arm. The photograph. You might think that where those scratch marks are, very much supports the evidence of [the complainant]. If someone had their arm around your neck, and you were trying to get them off, the obvious way to do it would be to reach around and try and wrench them off, leaving marks in the position where you might expect to find it. Not if someone just puts their arm around you in a hug. How would you get scratch [marks] on the outside of the arm, you just push the arm away and run. Well [the complainant] had no opportunity to run, she was in a serious headlock and she wasn't motioned down the alleyway. She was dragged while she was unconscious and then she was very much frogmarched down there and she was thrown on the ground. You have all the injuries, you will see the photographs." 54The applicant submits to this Court that there was a change in the Crown position relating to the position of his arm during the choking incident. There is no significant or substantial change in the position described by the Crown. That was the evidence of Mr Averre. That evidence is corroborated by the transcript. 55The misperception of the applicant was disclosed during the course of his cross-examination of Ms Mayne, the solicitor at trial. In demonstrating to her a position of the arm, he described the expert evidence (and some of the inferences available from the lay evidence) as the pressure being placed on the neck by the "crook of the elbow". The display of the applicant, during the course of cross-examination, was that the elbow was at the front of the neck. Nowhere, in the evidence or the submissions, is it suggested that the elbow was at the front of the neck. 56The evidence both of the experts and lay witnesses, together with the addresses of the Crown both in opening and in closing, are consistent with the crook of the elbow being at the side of the neck, not at the front of the neck. Thus, the evidence is consistent with the applicant's evidence that that the upper part of the arm (the humerus) was at the back of the neck, the elbow was bent at the side of the neck and the forearm was at the front of the neck. 57The foregoing positioning of the arm, which seems to be the only available position on the evidence before the Court below and before this Court, renders unarguable the applicant's submission that the infliction of the injury in that position was impossible and renders any submission as to inconsistency and lack of cross-examination unsustainable. 58Because the applicant is unrepresented, I have paid more attention to the evidence even though no submission was addressed to it other than as dealt with above. There is no aspect of the trial, including the conduct and competence of counsel or solicitor, that has occasioned the miscarriage of justice or rendered the trial anything other than a fair trial. 59More importantly, the evidence in the proceedings would not even arguably suggest that it was not open to a jury to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that the applicant was guilty of the offence of which he was convicted. I have no doubt of the kind that would suggest there was an insufficiency of evidence or that would involve a reasonable doubt as to the conclusion reached by the jury: see Morris v R [1987] HCA 50; (1987) 163 CLR 454 at 473; M v R [1994] HCA 63; (1994) 181 CLR 487 at 493; MFA v R [2002] HCA 53; (2002) 213 CLR 606 at 623-624; SKA v R [2011] HCA 13; (2011) 243 CLR 400. 60I have no doubt, reasonable or otherwise, as to the guilt of the accused and the appeal against conviction is, in my view, untenable. 61Ultimately, the expert evidence supported the version of events described by the complainant. The independent witnesses supported the version of events given by the complainant. Each class of evidence was materially inconsistent with the version of events given by the applicant. The criticism of the evidence of Mr Dalley as inconsistent with the evidence of the complainant misunderstands the circumstance that the observations of Mr Dalley occurred after the initial contact by the applicant, at the time immediately after the complainant lost consciousness. As a consequence there is, in the expert and independent evidence, only corroboration of the complainant's version and significant inconsistency with the version given by the applicant. 62As earlier stated, in relation to the sentence appeal, the applicant's submission concentrates on the maximum sentence available for indecent assault without regard to the fact that, in the offence here charged, the indecent assault is but one ingredient or element of the far more serious offence of which the applicant was convicted. 63The maximum sentence for the instant offence is 25 years' imprisonment. The applicant was convicted after trial and, notwithstanding the subjective factors to which the sentencing judge referred, a sentence of a non-parole period of 7 years with a remainder of term of 2 years and 4 months, commencing 17 January 2012 is neither out of the range available to the sentencing judge for this offence and this offender nor manifestly excessive. 64While the foregoing expression of view as to manifest excess is a conclusion, it is based upon the findings of fact of the sentencing judge as to the circumstances of the offence and the subjective circumstances of the offender and relates, particularly, to the range of sentences that have been imposed for such an offence, bearing in mind that there are few such examples. 65The expression of opinion takes account of the circumstances of the offence described above, the intoxication of the applicant and the applicant's brain and/or psychiatric injuries. The sentencing judge took into account that the offence that was ultimately committed after the choking was an indecent assault and not sexual intercourse without consent, thus lessening the culpability of the applicant, but also that the offence was interrupted by the conduct of the surrounding residents and others who observed or heard what was occurring. 66There is no error of principle or error that would warrant this Court interfering or considering interference with the sentencing discretion exercised by the trial judge: Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25; (2005) 228 CLR 357. The sentence is consistent with the statutory regime and within the range of sentences available and is not manifestly excessive. 67For the foregoing reasons, I consider that the ground of appeal on conviction and the ground of appeal on sentence are untenable and do not warrant the grant of leave to appeal. I propose that the Court refuse leave to appeal. 68WILSON J: I agree with Rothman J. The question of leave is one which involves consideration of the merits of the proposed appeal; in my opinion the grounds advanced by the applicant in support of both his conviction and sentence appeals are wholly lacking in merit. 69I wish to fully endorse the observations of Rothman J with respect to the evidence given before this Court by Ms. Mayne and Mr. Averre, the applicant's solicitor and counsel respectively at trial. Ms. Mayne was an impressive witness who was clearly an extremely capable solicitor; she had a thorough grasp of the applicant's case, her memory of it being significantly aided by the comprehensive file notes and records that she had taken and maintained. The practice of making thorough contemporaneous notes bespeaks her professionalism. Mr. Averre too was a witness of integrity. I had no hesitation in accepting the evidence of each.

DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 19 December 2014