Wurramarrba v Kirby [2026] NTSC 23

Reasonable doubt about guilt entertained by primary judge - Reasonable

doubt about guilt not established - Appeal dismissed.

CRIME - Appeals - Appeals against conviction - Miscarriage of justice

Whether primary judge misapplied the Liberato direction - Whether the

primary judge followed the Murray direction - Inconsistencies across the

whole of the evidence not established - Appeal dismissed

Local Court (Criminal Procedure) Act 1982 (NT), s 163(1)(b)

De Silva v The Queen (2019) 268 CLR 57, [2019] HCA 48; Foster v The King [2023] NTCCA 5; M v The Queen [1994] HCA 63; (1994) 181 CLR 487; Papakosmas v The Queen (1999) 196 CLR 297, [1999] HCA 37, referred to

Appellant: North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency

Respondent: Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions

Wurramarrba v Kirby [2026] NTSC 23

[1] On 20 June 2025 a Local Court Judge found the appellant, Lauren Wurramarrba (LW), guilty on the following charge:

That on 8 April 2024 at Woodroffe in the Northern Territory of Australia, you unlawfully assaulted [RL] and that the said unlawful assault involved the following circumstances of aggravation, namely, that the said [RL] suffered harm.

[2] LW has appealed that order under s 163(1)(b) of the Local Court (Criminal Procedure) Act 1982 (NT).[1] The sole ground of LW's appeal is that:

The conviction was unreasonable and/or unsupported by the evidence in all of the circumstances.[2]

[3] For the reasons that follow, LW's appeal will be dismissed.

[4] The principles relevant to determining an appeal of this kind were reviewed most recently by the Northern Territory Court of Criminal Appeal in Foster v The King (Foster).[3] In the course of that review, the Court considered a number of High Court authorities including M v The Queen[4] and made several points including the following:

1. That this Court must "make its own independent assessment of the whole of the evidence" and determine whether it holds a reasonable doubt about the guilt of the appellant.[5]

1. That in making that assessment, regard must be had to any advantages the tribunal of fact had in seeing and hearing the evidence, particularly where those advantages are "capable of resolving a doubt experienced by it".[6]

1. And finally, that the question is whether the tribunal of fact "must" have rather than "might" have entertained a doubt about the appellant's guilt.[7]

[5] In brief summary, the prosecution's case was as follows. At around midnight on 8 April 2024, LW arrived at RL's residential unit drunk and yelling. RL allowed LW inside her unit but called the police because of LW's drunken behaviour. Constable Clayton Leeder (Constable Leeder) was one of the police officers who attended the scene however by the time he arrived, the situation appeared settled so he left.

[6] Some hours later, at around 4am, LW suddenly became angry and began to verbally abuse RL. LW then jumped on top of RL, pushed her knees into RL and punched RL numerous times to her face and body. This caused RL pain and bleeding to her face.

[7] RL ran to her neighbour's unit to seek refuge. EP, the neighbour, called 000 and asked that the police to attend. Upon realising that the police had been contacted, LW fled.

[8] Constable Leeder was one of the police officers who attended at RL's unit on this second occasion. Soon after arriving, Constable Leeder spoke to RL and that conversation was recorded on Constable Leeder's body worn camera. Constable Leeder then photographed RL's injuries. Later that day, after receiving treatment, RL made a written statement to police about the incident.

[9] The Local Court hearing was conducted on 11 and 12 June 2025 at Alyangula on Groote Eylandt. Both RL and LW gave evidence at that hearing.

[10] Before RL gave her evidence, she was declared to be a vulnerable witness. Consequently, she appeared remotely via a Teams audio-visual link. She was not assisted by an interpreter.

[11] LW gave her evidence in person at Alyangula. She was assisted by an interpreter.

1. Exhibit 1 - the agreed facts.
2. Exhibit 2 - the body worn camera recording of Constable Leeder's attendance at RL's unit on the morning of 8 April 2024.
3. Exhibit 3 - the photographs of RL taken by Constable Leeder on the morning of 8 April 2024.
4. Exhibit 4 - RL's statutory declaration made on 8 April 2024.
5. Exhibit 5 - Constable Leeder's statutory declaration made on 8 April 2024.
6. Exhibit 6 - the recording of the 000 call made by EP on the morning of 8 April 2024.

[13] In her evidence-in-chief, RL said that late on the night in question she was woken by someone banging on the screen door of her residential unit. When she went to the front door, she saw that it was her daughter, LW. RL let LW in, following which LW had a shower. They both then sat down and had a yarn.

[14] Sometime later RL said that LW suddenly became aggressive. RL described LW as being "very angry". RL said that LW was saying "bad things and using indecent language and accusing me of this... and that". RL said that LW then picked up a mug and threw it at her, but it just missed her head and smashed into the wall.

[15] It was at about this point that RL said the assault occurred. She described it in these terms: "we was on the floor and she got me on the floor with her two knees, knocked me down and started punching..... she was very strong because she was intoxicated... her body was full of drugs."

[16] RL continued: "She was punching me in the face. She even hit me on the head. She punched me in the chest. She just punched me everywhere... I couldn't move my arms because she hold me down... But she was too strong. And I couldn't get up to help myself..."

[17] Eventually RL was able to free herself. When she did, she said: "then I managed to run out the door and across to the other side where our next-door neighbour." While RL was running towards the neighbour's unit, she said that LW was chasing her and threatening to kill her. RL claimed that LW threatened to kill her with a knife, but when LW couldn't find a knife, she picked up a hairbrush instead.

[18] RL said that her neighbour, EP, let RL into his unit and then locked the door. EP then called the police. After calling the police, EP spoke to LW through the screen door. When LW realised the police had been called, she ran away.

[19] When the police arrived, RL said that she spoke to them after which they took photographs of her injuries and the bloodstains on her shirt. RL said she could not remember what she said to the police when they arrived. In particular she said: "I can't remember. I can't remember. I said what I said on the day of that (inaudible) is. And now because of all the trauma that I've been going through, I think my memory is not good."

[20] However, after being shown Constable Leeder's body worn camera recording of her conversation with him, RL said that she did remember LW being at her unit earlier that night. She said: "... We had a bit of an argument and I called the police (inaudible) and they came and we were... sitting around having a cup of tea after everything had settled."

[21] RL was also asked whether, during her conversation with police, she told them about a mobile phone. In RL's response she said: "I tried to call the police a second time, and she wanted to use the phone ...And then (inaudible) the phone that she picked up, was hitting me with the phone... I can't remember it happened so fast, you know. ... She tried to grab the phone. I tried to call the police a second time, she tried to grab the phone."

[22] Finally, RL was taken to the photographs the police took of her injuries. At first she pointed to the hair brush shown in one of the photographs and said "that's the brush". Then she was asked to explain how those injuries were caused. Her responses (albeit made somewhat ambiguous by the "inaudible" notations) were as follows:

--- (inaudible) with a mobile phone or something. I don't know. Or she must have punched me in the face. (Inaudible).

Could these injuries have been caused by something else? --- No, I don't remember. Like, what - something else, what - she didn't hit me or something?

I mean could they have been caused by something else other than [LW]? --- You mean there was someone else or somebody hitting me then [LW]?

I'm just asking if anything else could have happened that might have caused those? --- No why should there be? (Inaudible).

[23] Three main topics were canvassed in RL's cross-examination. First, she was asked about several differences that were alleged to exist between what she told police in the conversation recorded on Constable Leeder's body worn camera early on the morning of 8 April 2024, what she said in her statement to police later the same day, and what she said in her evidence-in-chief. Secondly, RL was asked about the nature of her relationship with LW at the time. Thirdly, RL was asked about an incident that occurred on the night of 7/8 April when she and LW struggled over RL's walking stick.

[24] On the first topic, several matters were raised with RL which, it was claimed, appeared in her statement but not in her recorded conversation with police, or vice versa. They included: whether during the alleged assault, RL and LW struggled over a mobile phone; whether LW had choked RL and pulled her hair; whether LW had kicked RL; and whether, after the alleged assault, LW had pushed EP over before she fled from his unit.

[25] During this part of the cross-examination, RL variously denied "making up stories", or having "told something different" at every opportunity about the incident, or that in her conversations with police she had attempted "to make LW sound like a bad mother".

[26] On the second topic, RL agreed that in April 2024, her relationship with LW was "really bad". She also agreed that she was upset when LW came to her unit that night because LW was intoxicated. RL added "I can't stand drunks". Finally, she said that LW had caused her "grief in the past"; that she was therefore upset with her; and that she did not believe LW respected her. However, despite acknowledging that she had these feelings, RL denied being willing to "tell some lies stories to the police to get [LW] into trouble".

[27] The third topic emerged for the first time in cross-examination. It concerned whether RL and LW had struggled over RL's walking stick at RL's unit that night. While many of RL's answers in that part of her cross-examination are recorded in the transcript as "inaudible", it is, nonetheless, relatively clear that she had her walking stick with her that night. RL said she used the walking stick to protect herself.

[28] RL agreed that at some point during the night she swung the walking stick at LW. She said that when she did so, LW had tried to pull the walking stick off her and that resulted in a scuffle. RL described that scuffle in the following terms: "it was tug-of-war. And I was trying to grab - (inaudible) I was trying to get the stick off (inaudible) so I think what has happened is it knocked me on the floor. She would have done that, but she was so (inaudible). Yeah, a very angry woman."

[29] At first RL agreed that she might have been struck in the head by the walking stick during the tussle. She said that LW "whacked me with it". However, that claim was immediately succeeded by three denials which contained varying degrees of ambiguity, as follows:

And what I'm putting to you, ....is that while you're pulling your walking stick back, it struck you in the head? --- No, (inaudible) my walking stick.

During the tug-of-war, you're pulling back. Maybe she let go, and the momentum of that caused you ...it to strike your head; is that a fair assessment? --- No.

And what I'm putting to you,... is that [LW] never struck you on the head with her fist did she? --- That's (inaudible). No, there is no (inaudible).

[30] In her evidence-in-chief, LW said that earlier on the day in question she was drinking with family members in the city. She said she drank "lots". LW said that that evening, she went to her RL's unit to get some clothes. She said she went there "going on 7.00" and that was the first time she had been there that day. She said "I was knocking on the door. RL came out. She was telling me to go. She didn't want me there."

[31] Immediately following that interaction, LW said that RL "... ran to me with her walking stick". At that point LW said that she was outside the unit and RL was in the doorway.

[32] LW said that she and RL then became involved in an altercation which LW described in the following terms: "She hit me and then I tried to grab the walking stick. She was pulling and I was pulling the walking stick too. And I let go. It hit her and she fell backwards." She described the point of impact as the "top off her forehead".

[33] LW added that RL "hit me lots of times. I tried to stop her." While that was happening, she said RL told her to "Fuck off. Go. Don't come around my house." In response LW said she asked for her clothes.

[34] LW said that when RL fell, she landed on the lounge chair. She said, "I picked her up and I walked away, but she was chasing me." She said RL then came out of her unit and "headed to [EP's] house to call the police". LW denied seeing any blood on RL's face that night and denied swearing at RL, or "growling and making threats to her".

[35] In cross-examination, LW confirmed all the critical elements of the walking stick incident as recounted in her evidence-in-chief. LW added that: "If I would have bashed my mother, she would have been knocked down. She would have been ICU."

[36] That incident aside, LW denied almost every other aspect of RL's version of the events of that night. That included being at RL's unit earlier that night having a cup of tea there at the time that the police arrived; having a shower at the unit earlier that night; swearing at RL; and throwing a mug at her.

[37] The denials also included getting on top of RL, punching her and looking for a knife to threaten her. With respect to the former, she added: "if I would have bashed my mother she would have been dead. She would have had bruises. If I would have bashed my mother, she would have been a lot more damaged. They would have had to take photos. She would have had bruises. She could've died. I have respect for my mother". Finally, LW denied chasing RL to EP's unit, threatening her because she called the police and causing the injuries shown in the photographs.

[38] Sadly, EP is deceased. However, the agreed facts (Exhibit 1) record that RL went to EP's unit in the early hours of 8 April 2024 and told him that LW had assaulted her. The agreed facts also record that while EP did not witness or hear the fight between RL and LW, he did see LW present at the scene.

[39] The photographs of RL taken on the morning of 8 April 2024 (Exhibit 2) show her having a cut above her right eyebrow, a lump on her forehead and an abrasion on the top of her head. They also show both her t-shirt and the right side of her face covered in what appears to be fresh blood.

[40] With the exception of the following information, the statement that RL made to police later on 8 April 2024 (Exhibit 3), reiterated what she said in her evidence-in-chief, particularly that LW had punched her in the face with her hands closed "very hard":

1. She was 67 years old and LW was 41 years old.
2. During the assault LW was pulling her hair down and was choking her. She could feel the pain in her neck.
3. EP went outside his unit to keep LW away. While he was there, LW pushed EP over and then walked away.
4. While she was at EP's unit, LW was screaming and yelling and making threats to her. She was threatening to bash her if she told the police what had happened.

Exhibit 4 - Constable Leeder's Body Worn Camera Recording

[41] The first part of the recording from Constable Leeder's body worn camera (Exhibit 4) shows the police attending at RL's unit but being unable to locate her there. Then, after about three minutes of the police arriving, RL is shown walking across from the direction of the next-door neighbour's unit. The footage shows blood on RL's T-shirt, a cut above her right eye and abrasions on the left-hand side of her face.

[42] One of the police officers asked RL "what's happened" and in response she said, among other things: "My daughter, she bashed me up; I'm sore all over; it happened inside; I don't know where she went; it was just fists and she hit me with a mobile phone; she tried to grab the mobile off me".

[43] When one of the officers asked RL how much she had had to drink, she replied "I don't drink - never have".

[44] Next, one of the police officers asked RL how the argument had started and added "you guys were sitting down having a cup of tea when we were here earlier".

[45] RL replied: "yes, we were sitting around here". She continued: I was ready to lie down and she started raving on, she threw a mug at me and it hit the wall, then she was punching me and she kicked me in my chest.

[46] When one of the police officers asked "So she hit you on the eye with the phone?", RL replied: "no, she was punching me, constantly, she was trying to grab the phone, and she did once and I took it off her".

[47] Later in the conversation RL said: "I had finished cleaning and was going to bed, I heard someone shaking the screen door, it was her and she was yelling and screaming abuse, and I said you're waking all the neighbours".

[48] At about that point one of the police officers asked: "how many times do you reckon she hit you?", to which RL replied "heaps". RL added: "she just grabbed me and pinned me down to the floor on the couch". She also said "she chased me".

[49] Constable Leeder said in his statement (Exhibit 5) that he and his fellow officer went to RL's unit at about 4:10am on 8 April 2024 but no one was home at the time. However, a short time later an elderly lady, who he subsequently identified as RL, walked over from the next-door neighbour's house.

[50] When Constable Leeder first saw RL, he said that she was covered in blood, and he observed "a laceration to her right eye with blood running down from it onto her [sic] side of her face".

[51] Constable Leeder said that upon closer observation, he also noticed that RL had "bumps and swelling to her forehead" and "a graze on top of her head underneath the hairline". He said that he could see that RL "was in quite a lot of pain clenching over".

[52] When Constable Leeder asked RL what had happened, she said that her daughter "just bashed her". He said that RL also claimed that her daughter had tried "to rip her mobile phone... out of her hands and then started to punch her because she wouldn't give it to her". He added that RL said that LW "hit her with a closed fist all over her head and body and also kicked her three times in the chest".

[53] The inscription on this exhibit notes that the 000 call began at 4.03.54 on 04-08-2024.[8] The call begins with EP saying: "I've got a domestic violence, an old lady's getting beaten up".

[54] After providing the 000 call taker with RL's address, EP went on to say "the daughter's smashing her mother, she's got blood on her eye, she hit her around the head and that".

[55] EP added that RL had an injury to her head that was bleeding. He said that LW had "gone now" but he did not know where to.

[56] The Local Court Judge began her decision with a summary of the evidence and then made several observations concerning RL's and LW's credibility and reliability as witnesses.

[57] With respect to RL, her Honour said: "I find she's a witness of truth but I have concerns about her reliability. In order to accept her version I need to consider whether it is corroborated."

[58] On this aspect, her Honour observed that: "[RL's] account is corroborated by the photographs of her injuries. [LW's] account does not explain how [RL] got three injuries to her head: the cut to the eyebrow, the large bump and the cut to the top of her head."

[59] Her Honour added: "[RL's] account about what [LW] did to her physically was consistent between the evidence she gave in court and what she said in the body worn camera recording and in her written statement."

[60] With respect to LW she said: "I have formed the view that [LW] was giving evidence to try and put herself in the best light, and to minimise what she said and did. I do not accept her as a witness of truth because of this." In reaching this conclusion her Honour: referred to the fact that LW was very intoxicated at the time; rejected LW's claim that she respected her mother and did not argue with her; made particular mention of LW's evidence that she did not see her mother "bleeding at all" that night.

[61] Thereafter, her Honour made a series of findings and drew several conclusions. They included:

1. That there was an altercation between RL and LW involving a walking stick. That during that altercation LW let go of the walking stick and RL was struck in the head as a result. However, her Honour could not find beyond reasonable doubt that this amounted to an assault, nor which of the injuries shown in the photographs were caused by that blow.
2. That she was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that LW threw a mug at RL which missed her and struck the wall near her head. However, she could not find exactly when that occurred in relation to the walking stick incident.
3. That she was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that LW hit RL with a mobile phone, but she also could not find when that occurred.
4. That she was not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that LW had kicked RL to the chest, or choked her, or pulled her hair.
5. However, she did find beyond reasonable doubt that RL fell to the ground and that LW got on top of her with her knees and punched and hit her.

[62] Ultimately, her Honour concluded that she was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that LW had assaulted RL and caused RL to suffer harm.

[63] LW contended that the Local Court Judge's decision was unsafe and unsatisfactory because she had accepted RL as a witness of truth in the face of "persistent inconsistencies" in RL's various versions of the events of 8 April 2024. LW identified five areas of such inconsistencies.

[64] First, LW claimed that RL mentioned the walking stick incident and the presence of long grassers for the first time in cross-examination. Secondly, LW claimed that the allegation that she had choked RL and pulled her hair was mentioned in her statement but not in Constable Leeder's body worn camera recording, nor in her evidence in-chief. Thirdly, she claimed that RL changed her account with respect to the involvement of RL's mobile phone during the body worn camera recording - as to whether RL was hit with it or not - and then RL did not mention that matter at all in her statement. Fourthly, and similarly, LW claimed that the allegation that she had kicked RL in the chest was mentioned in the body worn camera recording but not in RL's statement. Lastly, LW contended that RL's claim that she had pushed EP over was mentioned in RL's statement, but EP himself made no mention of it in the 000 call that he made.

[65] LW also raised several concerns about RL's demeanour during her cross-examination. LW claimed that RL had failed to answer some questions, was evasive in her answers to other questions, made unrelated criticisms of the cross-examiner and on one occasion, sought to rely upon a medical certificate to avoid answering questions. LW also highlighted the concession RL made in her evidence-in-chief that she was unable to remember the events of the night in question.

[66] Finally, LW contended that the Local Court Judge had misapplied the Liberato direction, particularly with respect to its second limb and had not followed the Murray direction by failing to give careful scrutiny to RL's version.

[67] In response, the respondent contended that RL's version was not inconsistent but rather that she had given different degrees of detail in her various accounts of the events of the night in question. With respect to the criticisms of RL's demeanour in cross-examination, the respondent contended that several of the questions that RL was asked were based on incorrect propositions and that caused her legitimate annoyance.

[68] Further, the respondent contended that both the Liberato and Murray directions were properly articulated and applied by the Local Court Judge. On the former, the respondent contended that her Honour had duly considered LW's version and rejected it. On the latter, the respondent contended that her Honour had then turned to scrutinise RL's version of events with great care and ultimately accepted RL's version because it was corroborated in several respects.

[69] The respondent contended that those corroborations included the consistencies that existed on the critical elements in the description RL gave of the event in the body worn camera recording, in her written statement and in her evidence in chief. Further, the respondent contended that RL's version of the events was supported by the photographs of her injuries, the evidence of EP about RL's immediate complaint to him and Constable Leeder's unchallenged evidence that he had attended at RL's unit earlier that night.

[70] It is convenient to begin with the Liberato direction to which both parties referred. In De Silva v The Queen[9] the majority observed that such a jury direction should be framed in the following terms:[10]

(i) if you believe the accused's evidence [or account] you must acquit;

(ii) if you do not accept that evidence [or account] but you consider that it might be true, you must acquit; and

(iii) if you do not believe the accused's evidence [or account] you should put that evidence [or account] to one side.

The question will remain: has the prosecution, on the basis of evidence that you do accept, proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt?

[71] The third limb of Liberato raises a further jury direction to which both parties also referred, namely a Murray direction. The necessity for a Murray direction arises where the prosecution's case relies largely or exclusively on the evidence of a single witness. In that event, a jury is usually directed to give that witness's evidence close and careful scrutiny to ensure that it establishes the accused's guilt to the requisite standard.[11] That direction is usually accompanied by an instruction that the jury should look to see if the witness's evidence is supported by other evidence.

[72] In this matter, that instruction raises a related issue, namely the uses that may be made of complaint evidence. Such evidence may be used in one, or both, of two ways. First to provide additional evidence that the incident occurred in the manner that the witness described. Secondly, to make it more likely that the witness is telling the truth about the incident concerned.[12]

[73] In applying these principles in this matter, it is appropriate to begin with the first two limbs of Liberato set out above. For the following reasons, I do not consider LW's evidence about the events of the night as either likely to be true, or believable as a reasonable possibility.

[74] The first is timing. According to LW's evidence it was "going on 7.00" on 7 April 2024 when she went to RL's unit and the altercation involving RL's walking stick occurred shortly after that. Then, immediately following that incident, LW said RL went to EP's house to call the police.[13] These claims are contradicted by the independent evidence which fixes the approximate time when the altercation between the two women occurred. Specifically, the inscription on the 000 call[14] and Constable Leeder's statement[15] both fix the time of the critical incident at shortly before 4am on 8 April 2024.

[75] The second is related to the first. It is the "cup of tea" incident. On LW's version the incident with the walking stick marked the only time she went to RL's unit that night. In particular, LW denied being there having a cup of tea with RL when police arrived earlier that night.[16] These claims are contradicted by RL's evidence-in-chief about that incident.[17] But more importantly that evidence is corroborated by one of the police officers (presumably Constable Leeder) asking RL about that incident during the body worn camera recording.[18]

[76] The third is LW's failure to observe any blood on RL's face that night.[19] This evidence is also inconsistent with the independent evidence. That includes EP's evidence that when RL attended at his unit in the early morning of 8 April, she had blood on her eye and was bleeding from an injury to her head.[20] As well, Constable Leeder's body worn camera footage taken shortly after 4.00am that morning shows RL's t-shirt covered in blood, and blood located on the right side of her face.[21] In addition, Constable Leeder said in his statement that when he attended at RL's unit he observed blood running down RL's face from a cut above her right eye.[22] Finally, the photographs of RL taken by Constable Leeder at about that time depict her t-shirt and the right side of her face covered in blood. [23]

[77] The fourth is LW's state of intoxication which by her own admission was significant.[24] That, alone, is likely to explain many of the deficiencies in her evidence outlined above.

[78] Finally, it is important to note the significant advantages that the Local Court Judge had when she reached similar conclusions about LW's version of the events of the night.[25] In particular, being able to see both women in person and hear them give their evidence.

[79] The former is significant because it is apparent from the body worn camera recording that RL is an elderly woman of small stature and a slight build. On the other hand, apart from knowing that LW is approximately 26 years younger than RL, this Court has no means of assessing LW's body size or physical agility. This disparity would appear to be significant because LW herself referred to it several times in her cross-examination, albeit in a self-serving manner.[26]

[80] The latter is even more significant. That is so because the transcript of the evidence upon which this Court has had to rely is replete with "(inaudible)" notations. Indeed, in some instances, it is difficult to discern the full import of the answers given. The following, taken from the cross-examination of RL, provides an example (at transcript page 15):

Sorry, [RL], I think I cut you off. You were about to say something? --- (Inaudible) if the question that (inaudible) back to the unit (inaudible). She was intoxicated.

Yes she was intoxicated. And she came to your house intoxicated and she asked you to get close, is that right? --- Yes. But what (inaudible) it was still (inaudible) my house with (inaudible).

Yes. She was intoxicated at the time? --- (Inaudible). She was intoxicated. (Inaudible). With the (inaudible) behaviour (inaudible).

So is it true that she did ask for clothes when she came to your house that night? --- (Inaudible) I thought she might go back (inaudible) clothes (inaudible) clothes. (Inaudible). It was (inaudible) she asked me (inaudible) time to find this. (Inaudible) instructions (inaudible) came in (inaudible) not to make trouble but she (inaudible).[27]

[81] For these reasons I do not consider LW's evidence about the events of the night is either likely to be true or believable as a reasonable possibility. It necessarily follows from this conclusion that I do not consider there is any merit in LW's claim that the Local Court Judge misapplied the first two limbs of the Liberato direction in assessing her evidence.

[82] Having rejected LW's contentions in those respects, it is next necessary to consider the third limb of the Liberato direction: putting aside her version and based on the evidence adduced by the respondent, has her guilt been proved beyond reasonable doubt? As noted earlier, this requires, among other things, that RL's evidence be subjected to close and careful scrutiny.

[83] It is convenient to begin that scrutiny with the two main features of RL's evidence that have been impugned by LW. First, the five areas of alleged inconsistencies that were said to emerge during RL's cross-examination. Secondly, RL's demeanour during that cross-examination.[28]

[84] As for the alleged inconsistencies, I essentially agree with the respondent's contention. Specifically, the matters identified are not, in my view, inconsistent with other parts of the evidence that RL gave in court, or with the account she gave to police as recorded on Constable Leeder's body worn camera, or in the statement she later made to police.

[85] Instead, I consider they involved RL providing additional degrees of detail about the events of the night in question in varying settings, at different stages of the aftermath. First, in the more informal discussion recorded on Constable Leeder's body worn camera immediately after the alleged incident while she was still suffering from her injuries. It is to be noted that, at this stage, many of the details that RL provided were in response to questions asked of her by the attending police officers.[29]

[86] Secondly, in the more formal setting of a police station, later that day, after RL had received treatment for her injuries, when she made her written statement in the form of a statutory declaration.[30]

[87] Thirdly, at the hearing conducted approximately 14 months later where RL freely acknowledged that she was not able to recall some of the details of the events of that night.[31]

[88] In my view these circumstances explain why the allegations that LW had choked RL and pulled her hair and that LW had pushed EP over outside his unit[32] appear in RL's statement but those details were not mentioned earlier during her more informal discussion with police as recorded on Constable Leeder's body worn camera.[33]

[89] The important thing, for present purposes, is that RL did not, at any stage, including in her evidence in court, deny those things had occurred, or otherwise say anything which was inconsistent with them, such as to raise any valid concerns about her reliability as a witness.

[90] Conversely, but to similar effect, while RL said during the discussion recorded on Constable Leeder's body worn camera that LW had kicked her,[34] and she did not mention that detail in her statement,[35] or in her evidence-in-chief,[36] she did not at any stage say anything inconsistent with that having occurred.

[91] The mobile phone incident is somewhat different. That is so because RL did mention it in her evidence-in-chief,[37] albeit after being shown the footage recorded on Constable Leeder's body worn camera where she described that incident.[38] That being so, the failure to mention it in her statement is, in my view, of little moment. It does not amount to an inconsistency which could rationally affect RL's reliability as a witness.

[92] Finally, the walking stick incident is in a different category again. RL did not mention that detail in her evidence-in-chief, nor in her statement, nor during the conversation recorded on Constable Leeder's body worn camera. It first came to light when it was put to RL during her cross-examination. In response RL agreed, albeit reluctantly, that the incident had occurred and that she had swung her walking stick at LW.[39]

[93] Since this incident occurred soon after LW arrived at RL's front door and, on LW's evidence, that happened at about 7pm on 7 April, it is difficult to see how it is relevant to what occurred at about 4am the next morning. That is so even on RL's evidence that LW came to her front door at about midnight. That aside, because it had not been mentioned by RL at any earlier point it could not, in itself, have given rise to an inconsistency which adversely affected RL's evidence as a witness.

[94] For these reasons I do not accept LW's contention that RL's evidence was unreliable because of any of the inconsistencies identified by her.

[95] Turning then to the second way in which LW sought to impugn RL's evidence, namely by highlighting RL's demeanour during cross-examination.[40] On this matter I also agree with the respondent's contention that RL's confrontational demeanour is largely explained by the manner in which the cross-examination was conducted.

[96] As already mentioned, a part of RL's cross-examination was directed to inconsistencies that were said to exist between what she said in the conversation recorded on Constable Leeder's body worn camera; the contents of the statement she made to police later that day; and her evidence-in-chief.

[97] In the course of that part of the cross-examination it was put to RL that she told police during the conversation recorded on Constable Leeder's body worn camera that LW had choked her. RL's response was: "I didn't say that to them". Next it was put to RL that she told police in the same conversation that LW had pulled her hair but that she had not said that in her statement. RL responded that she wrote down what had happened in her statement and added, rhetorically, "should I be lying?".

[98] It was then suggested to RL that she was, indeed, "making up some stories". While most of her answers to this suggestion are noted to be "inaudible", it is clear that RL became annoyed and indignant at the insinuation that she was lying. More importantly, from about that point in the cross-examination it is apparent that RL became increasingly confrontational and reluctant to answer the questions being put to her.

[99] As it turns out, RL was justified in her reaction to this questioning. That is so because the cross-examiner's questions were based on a false premise. It appears that he had confused what RL said in the conversation recorded on Constable Leeder's body worn camera with what she said in her statement.

[100] RL did in fact say in her statement that LW had choked her and pulled her hair. She was therefore correct when she said that she wrote that detail down in her statement. She was also correct when she said that she did not mention that to the police in the conversation recorded on Constable Leeder's body worn camera. It follows that RL was justified in rejecting the cross- examiner's assertions that she was lying in these respects.

[101] Since this state of affairs arose from confusion on the part of the cross-examiner and explains, at least in part, why RL adopted the confrontational demeanour that she did in cross-examination, I do not consider LW can rely on it to attack RL's credibility or reliability as a witness.

[102] For these reasons I reject each of the two main aspects upon which LW has sought to impugn RL's evidence. However, this conclusion does not provide a complete answer in this appeal. It remains necessary to scrutinise the whole of the evidence adduced by the respondent to determine whether it was sufficient to establish LW's guilt on the charge of aggravated assault beyond reasonable doubt. For the following reasons I consider the respondent's evidence is of that character.

[103] To begin with, it is important to identify the elements of the offence of aggravated assault with which LW was charged. Relevantly, they are:

1. that on 8 April 2024, LW assaulted RL by punching her to the face; and
2. that LW intended to assault RL; and
3. that LW did so unlawfully; and
4. that RL suffered harm as a result.

[104] In assessing the sufficiency of the evidence with respect to these elements, it is important to begin by noting that RL was consistent throughout on two critical matters. First, the nature of the blow that caused the relevant injury, namely a punch or punches. Secondly, the part of her body that was struck, namely her face.[41] That is to say, RL was consistent in describing the salient features of the conduct identified in the first element above.

[105] Furthermore, the resultant injury to RL's face, namely the cut above her right eye, was supported by independent evidence. Specifically, the photographs that Constable Leeder took of RL's injuries (exhibit 3),[42] the recording of those injuries shown on Constable Leeder's body worn camera (exhibit 2)[43] and EP's observations about the injuries which he mentions during his 000 call (exhibit 6).[44] There can be no doubt that this injury amounted to harm within the terms of the fourth element above.

[106] Finally, bearing on the second and third elements above, RL's account of the incident is supported by the complaint evidence. First, in RL's complaints to EP about the incident as recorded in the agreed facts (exhibit 1) and in EP's 000 call (exhibit 6). As for the former, they include that RL had been assaulted by her daughter and that LW was still present at the scene.[45] As for the latter, they include that "an old lady's getting beaten up" and "the daughter's smashing her mother".[46] Secondly, in RL's relatively detailed complaints to police as recorded on Constable Leeder's body worn camera

(exhibit 4)[47] and in her statement (exhibit 3).[48]

[107] In this respect I consider that complaint evidence operates in both of the two ways identified earlier. First, to provide additional evidence that the incident occurred in the manner that RL described. Secondly, to make it more likely that RL is telling the truth about that incident.

[108] Having regard to the combined effect of these features of the evidence adduced by the respondent, I consider that each of the elements of the offence charged against LW has been established to the requisite standard.

[109] It is worth adding that, if I had any reasonable doubt about this conclusion (and I emphasise that I do not), it would have involved the same issue that concerned the Local Court Judge, namely the reliability of RL's evidence. In that event I would have relied on the unique advantages that her Honour possessed, as identified earlier, to resolve that issue in RL's favour.

[110] For these reasons LW has failed to establish that the Local Court Judge's order was either unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence. Put differently, I do not consider her Honour must have entertained a doubt about LW's guilt. Her appeal is therefore dismissed.

[1] That subsection provides a party to a proceeding with a right to appeal a conviction, order or adjudication, on a ground which involves "an error or mistake, on the part of the Local Court, on a matter or question of fact alone, or a matter or question of law alone, or a matter or question of both fact and law."

[2] Since LW was not convicted on 20 June 2025 (that occurred on 10 July 2025) but rather was found guilty on that date, I will assume that this ground is intended to refer to that order.

[3] [2023] NTCCA 5 at [9] to [14].

[4] [1994] HCA 63; (1994) 181 CLR 487.

[9] (2019) 268 CLR 57, [2019] HCA 48.

[10] Ibid per Kiefel CJ, Bell, Gageler and Gordon JJ at [12].

[12] See Papakosmas v The Queen (1999) 196 CLR 297 [1999] HCA 37.

[26] See at [35] and [37] above.

[27] See also at [22] and [29] above.

[29] See at [42] "what's happened?"; at [44] to [45] how did the argument start? at [46] did she hit you with the phone? and at [48] how many times did she hit you?

[30] Exhibit 3 summarised at [40] above.

[31] See at [19] and [21] above.

[38] See at [42] and [46] above.

[41] See at [16] and [22] (albeit with a degree of ambiguity) above in RL's cross-examination at [42] and [46] above in Constable Leeder's body worn camera footage (exhibit 4) and at [40] above in RL's statement to police (exhibit 3). See also RL's complaint to Constable Leeder at [52] above (exhibit 5).

[46] See at [53] and [54] above.