University of Arkansas System
Type of paper: Thesis/Dissertation Chapter
What Crime Has Been Comitted
The purpose of this report is to sum up the court case of Rixon Vs Star City PTY LTD (2001 september). Mr Brian Rixon is the Appellant and Star City Pty Ltd (formerly Sydney Harbour Casino Pty Ltd) is the Respondent. Mr Rixon is suing Star City for battery, assult and unlawful arrest. What crime has beem commited? Include a defention of this crime. In this particulular case of Brian Rixon vs Star City PTY LTD, battery, assult and unlawful arrest were alegedely commited, these offences fall under tort law. A tort can be defined as a civil wrong.
Battery can be defined as; direct intentional or neglective conduct that causes contact with the body of another without consent. While in criminal law this conduct is also known as assault, in civil actions a distinction is made between battery that invoves a threat of contact without assault. Brian Rixon had been made the subject of an exclusion order issued under the Casino Control Act (which meant that he could not return to the casino). However Mr Rixon did not abide to these terms and once again entered the casino.
As a result of this an employee of the respondent approached Mr Rixon in the casino, placed his hand on Mr Rixon, spun him around informed him that; as an excluded person, he was required to follow him to an interview room. Mr Rixon was held in this room for approximately an hour and a half before police arrived; during which time he claimed he suffered stress and anxiety. Indentify the defenda nts and what plea they used. The defendants in this particular case are Star City PTY LTD.
They had decided to plea not guilty and defended there employes decision to remove Mr Rixon from the casino as he was violating the casino control act. Outline the arguments they used in there case The defendants used the following arguments in there defence: Defence against assualt- Proof of assault requires proof of an intention to create in another person an apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact. If the assault lies in creating an apprehension of impending contact, proof of the assault does not require proof of an intention to follow it up or carry it through.
However Mr Ross (Casino Inspector) placed his hand on Mr Rixon’s shoulder without using any degree of force and said “Are you Brian Rixon? ” which leads to conclusion that Mr Ross had no intention of creating in Mr Rixon an apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive conduct Defence against battery- forms of conduct, long held to be acceptable, is touching a person for the purpose of engaging his attention, though of course using no greater degree of physical contact than is reasonably necessary in the circumstances for that purpose. Defence against false imprisonment/wrongfully accused-Any of the people in charge of the casino, the agent of the casino operator or the casino employee who knew that a person, the subject of an exclusion order, was in the casino premises “must remove the person from the casino or cause the person to be removed from the casino. Or detain the subject until the authorities arrive to initiate protocol. Identify the Plaintiff The plaintiff In this particular case is Brian Rixon. Outline the arguments of the plaintiff.
These arguments were used by the Plaintiff: Assault- The appellant Mr Rixon claimed that he was assaulted by the government inspector Ross. Mr Rixon claims that the inspector grabbed him by the shoulder and spun him around while he was playing poker. He said that it hurt his shoulder and neck. Battery- The appellant Mr Rixon claimed that the inspector had grabbed him by the shoulder and spun him around. This was not acceptable to him and he felt that it violated his security.
Quote from her Honour “The law cannot draw the line between different degrees of violence, and therefore totally prohibits the first and lowest stage of it; every man’s person being sacred, and no other having a right to meddle with it, in any the slightest manner. ”. False imprisonment/ wrongfully accused- The plaintiff claimed that he was wrongfully accused and did not deserve to be imprisoned. He also claimed that was in false imprisonment and that they had no right to keep him at the casino. In what court was the case heard? Was the case heard only by a judge or a judge and jury?
Why? This particular case was held in district court infront of a judge- judicial officer: Balla ADCJ. This case was only presented in front of judge and not in front of a jury because it is not a criminal case it is a civil case. State the verdict and punishment handed down. Do you think this decision was fair why? / why not? The decision made by judge Balla was that the appeal would be dimmised with cost. The trial Judge rejected Mr Rixon’s case in battery on the basis that the touching lacked “the requisite anger or hostile attitude” to be considered as battery.
Therefore her Honour dismissed the appeal. The trial Judge rejected the case in assault by finding “that the actions of the defendant’s employee lacked `the requisite intention in relation to assault’. ” Her honour rejected Mr Rixon’s account of being grabbed or spun round, her Honour’s finding that Mr Ross placed his hand on Mr Rixon’s shoulder without using any degree of force and said “Are you Brian Rixon? ” This led her to conclude that Mr Ross had no intention of creating in Mr Rixon an apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive conduct.
Therefore her Honour dismissed the appeal. The trial judge rejected the case in False imprisonment and wrongfully accused. The detention of Mr Rixon was made on reasonable grounds and that no more force was used than was proper in the circumstances. Her Honour said that Mr Rixon’s evidence established that he was informed of the reasons for the detention and that the police were notified immediately of the detention. Mr Rixon was not detained for any longer than was reasonable to enable a police officer to attend at the casino premises.
Furthermore Mr Rixon was subject to an exclusion order. By entering the premise he violated the exclusion order and was detained while the police were notified. The staffs at Star City were just following protocol. Therefore her Honour dismissed the appeal. I believe that the verdict for this case was fair as Mr Rixon was out of line and did not need to sue on such an unworthy matter. The staffs at Star City Casino were simply doing their jobs as instructed. The judge did give the matter thoughtful revision and came to an accurate decision.