SUPREME COURT

Press, Volume LXXXVIII, Issue 26662, 22 February 1952, Page 5

SUPREME COURT

APPEAL UPHELD ASSAULT CONVICTION QUASHED ‘‘A man is violently assaulted and he “ is brought into Court as if he were the aggressor.. It seems that if anybody should have been prosecuted for assault it should have been Goddard,” said Mr Justice Northcroft, in the Supreme Court yesterday, allowing an appeal by Norman Philip Munro, aged 36, a truck driver, against his conviction and fine of £1 by Mr Rex C. Abernethy, S.M., in the Magistrate's Court on November 29, on a charge of assaulting Victor Douglas Goddard. His Honour quashed the conviction. Mr A. C. Perry appeared for the Crown, and Mr J. G. Leggat for Munro. The appeal was by way of rehearing. Mr Perry said the charge against Munro was one of assaulting a taxi driver in Worcester street about midnight on October 20. It appeared that he was waiting for a taxi ''at a stand by the Government buildings. One driven by Victor Douglas Goddard drove up and an argument ensued about whether Munro was entitled to claim the services of the taxi, because almost at the same time a Mrs Boucher got into the taxi. Munro became abusive. The driver got out of the taxi and an assault occurred. The actual hitting was done by Goddard and he seemed to be the first to hit. The view of the police was that Munro caused the assault by being abusive. His Honour: Is he to be convicted of assault because he provokes his own chastisement? Mr Perry said that admittedly it did not appear to be a strong case against the appellant. His Honour: Apparently he could have been prosecuted for a breach of the peace. But why assault? Victor Douglas Goddard, a taxi driver, gave evidence on the lines of counsel's statement of the case. He said he got out of his taxi twice to warn Munro about Using bad language and to leave the car alone. Munro called him a name and witness turned round and hit him. Munro made “o protect himself, and Munro’s companion Intervened. Munro then tackled him round the ankles and he went down. Munro's friend kicked him on the back and when he got up he was confronted by Munro’s friend with a bottle. Eventually witness got away in another taxi. To Mr Leggat, witness said that Munro hit him twice, but they were not very serious blows. Dulcie A. Boucher, a married woman, said she walked across the street from the Mayfair Lounge to get a taxi. She entered the taxi from the footpath. She did not know the other two men were waiting for a taxi.. She was quite will- ■ ing to let them have it when Munro used bad language, but Goddard said she was to stay. She later got into another taxi. She saw Goddard get out of his taxi and hit Munro. Sergeant E. A. Morrissey said he went to the taxi-stand at 11.45 p.m. and saw Munro there. Munro's face was covered with blood and he had a badly-bruised cheek. Munro said he had been assaulted by a taxi driver, and he (Munro) had argued with the taxi driver because the latter wanted to take a passenger who arrived later than Munro. Sergeant Morrissey said that Munro and his companion accompanied him to the police station. Munro’s companion was carrying a bottle of wine. Both men had had liquor. A constable took Munro to the public hospital, where he was admitted. Goddard, called at the police station and admitted hitting Munio. but pleaded provocation. To Mr Leggat. witness said that Munro was badly knocked about. “I do not know why Munro was prosecuted for assault. I did not recommend it." said Sergeant Morrissey to his Honour. His Honour said he did not need to hear Mr Leggat. As the case came before him it was quite clear that Munro was not guilty of assault, but Goddard was. It seemed strange, if that was the information the police had, that Munro should have been prosecuted for assault. He could only assume that the case was not presented in the Lower Court as it was before him, said his Honour. No case of assault was established against Mvnro, and the conviction would be quashed.