A Charles Darwin University lecturer has appeared in Darwin local court for assaulting a staff member at Donut King in Casuarina Square earlier this year.
37-year-old Michael Odei Erdiaw-Kwasie appeared before Judge Therese Austin on the charge of Assault a Worker Suffers Harm.
Defence barrister Richard Bryson said his client was "literally minding his own business in the shopping centre".
"There's an interaction between the victim and his wife which involves highly emotive exchanges, for any person in a relationship with their partner, more particularly a person of colour. He took [inaudible] to that.
"The incident itself, while any assault can be considered somewhat serious, I respectfully submit it's at the lowest end of the spectrum.
Barrister Bryson said the assault involved the defendant "leaning over the counter in a single application of force with minimal force, enough purely to make out the elements of the charge."
"There's no gratuitous violence. Notwithstanding the emotions under the circumstances that I'm explaining, he immediately takes stock of himself, and acknowledges the error of his ways.
"It was the wrong thing to do. He immediately desists. He then self-reports the incident to the security at Casuarina Square."
"When contacted by police, which was the inevitable result, he actively engaged and gave a record of interview, explained exactly what had happened, and cooperated to the fullest extent possible from there."
The judge and defence barrister discussed the aspects of the alleged slur
Judge Austin: "It's alleged that he believes that the Donut King worker did say something that connotates a racial slur about his wife."
"I don't know whether the crown does or doesn't accept that that's what was said."
Judge Austin said she wouldn't make find any findings "that the victim did or didn't say anything like that unless the crown accepts [inaudible].
Barrister Bryson: "At the end of the day there's CCTV footage of him. There is no sound. My client is adamant on what he heard. The victim denies it.
"I think it's somewhat supported by the fact that he self reports the incident, and that's a contemporaneous account of the incident."
Judge: "That doesn't mean that is what happened. That might just mean that was in your clients mind at the time."
Barrister: "I'm just trying to provide context to the incident."
Judge: "There is context because your client has said that."
"The issue is of course that any application of force is these situations is totally unacceptable."
"You don't strike someone, hit someone, and do what he did because you don't like what a customer service officer does or says or even if you think you are being insulted.
"It's just bizarre in a civilised society, that he would reach over and hit someone like that.
"If my husband stepped on in and gave someone a whack.
"I'd be quit upset with my husband. I don't want my husband going around hitting people or tapping them on the cheek.
"I'm going to say that really clearly. I don't need my husband or any man coming along and helping me out in that manner. 'Stand back honey'."
"If I've got someone who's assaulting me or giving me a hard time or threatening my physical person or swearing at me, then we're in a different cup of tea, but even then I'll sort it out.
"I don't need you to be violent on my behalf. You're not really helping, you're just escalating it to a different world.
"And I'm going to say that in this case.
"That's often misunderstood by men. You don't help me by going in there violent. Do we need that? I don't think so ladies. Do we? No. I'm going to put that one out there. Thank you very much. Let's move on."
- Judge Austin
"And I hope we move into a different world where proportionality is assessed. I'm not saying men should not be available if something very serious is going down.
"Even if someone insults you. Keep it all in perspective."
Barrister Bryson thanked the judge, before outlining why his client shouldn't get a conviction.
"He comes before the court without any history whatsoever. It's clearly an aberration of character. He has strong contributions to the community.
"When you have regard for those relevant factors, the defendant is someone that should be able to come before the court and mercifully ask the court, on their good character, for an incident that's clearly is a one-off aberration; an error of judgment.
"You can be confident that this man is someone you will never see before this court or any other court again."
In her sentencing remarks judge Austin said she was "not making a factual finding that the worker said what the defendant thought they said."
"However I do think that it might explain what you thought was going on in your mind, whether it was true or not.
"I don't have to make that finding whether it was true or not.
"The worker's not here to justify or explain their situation.
"We're not going to have the factual hearing because that would defeat the whole purpose of your plea, but it does explain what was going on and it would certainly be the case that it would have got you very upset, if you believed that was being said.
Judge Austin reiterated that "lashing out physically is just so not ok."
"That person I believe would have been quite frightened, and hurt and upset about what happened. They were a lot younger than you. They're working at Donut King, that's their job."
A community corrections order for 12 months without imprisonment was given, and no conviction was recorded.
We are The Mango Inquirer.
