Paul Matthew Maggs and Kanpachira Pasitkunlapat have assault convictions upheld

A court has heard how a wild brawl involving claims of ‘boobie touching’ and ‘ball grabbing’ was sparked by the toilet habits of a cat. Here’s how it all played out.

A row over a defecating cat descended into a neighbourhood brawl in which a man was accused of trying to touch the “boobies” of a “cat lady”.

Gold Coast couple Paul Matthew Maggs and Kanpachira Pasitkunlapat were convicted in the Southport Magistrates Court of assault occasioning bodily harm in company for their roles in the brawl on the evening of December 8, 2022, which ended with Mr Maggs “grabbing (the complainant’s) balls”.

They appealed those convictions in the District Court, with evidence presented stating the incident was sparked by the toilet habits of a pet belonging to a woman identified only as “the cat lady”.

“Some 20 to 30 minutes (before the incident) the complainant had walked the street in an attempt to pinpoint the noise of a reversing forklift siren. He found out where that was,” a judgment handed down on July 5 states.

“As he was walking home he encountered a person who he called the ‘cat lady’. One of her cats was having ‘a crap’ in the bushes and he shooed it away.”

The judgment reveals that the “cat lady” then started filming the man on her mobile phone.

She accused him of kicking her cat, and he allegedly tried to grab her phone.

“He denied that he had kicked the cat, or that he had assaulted or threatened the cat lady,” the judgment stated. “He denied that he had previously thrown a bucket of water at two people over a paling fence, although admitted he had thrown a bucket of water on top of the fence because there was ‘bird crap’ on it. He disagreed that he was a man with a short temper and aggressive.”

The row was allegedly sparked by a cat having ‘a crap’ in the bushes. Picture: iStock.

Following the incident Mr Maggs and Ms Pasitkunlapat attended the home where the man was staying with his children.

“The complainant testified that he heard an almighty bang, or three bangs, at his front door. It was a Crimsafe door. The banging scared the hell out of him and his children,” the court heard.

“He proceeded to the door and asked Mr Maggs why ‘the fuck’ he was banging on his door. Mr Maggs asked him if he had kicked ‘this lady’s cat’ and pointed to the ‘cat lady’. The complainant replied that he had not.”

A brawl then ensued between the man and the two defendants which saw him suffer “injuries amounting to bodily harm”.

“He (the complainant) agreed that once the incident started they hardly let each other go. It only ended when the complainant was on the ground, with Mr Maggs grabbing his ‘balls’,” the judgment states.

Paul Matthew Maggs and Kanpachira Pasitkunlapat were convicted in the Southport Magistrates Court of assault occasioning bodily harm in company.

The pair’s convictions were appealed on the grounds that the findings of guilt were unreasonable and not supported by evidence, and that the Magistrate’s findings contained errors of fact and law, including the reversal of onus.

Among their complaints, which the court found was “justified”, was that the Magistrate had made a factual error which affected Ms Pasitkunlapat’s credibility as a witness.

“The learned Magistrate stated: In respect of (Ms Pasitkunlapat) she stated to police that (the complainant) ‘tried to touch her boobies too’.

“ ... It is correct that Ms Pasitkunlapat did not accuse the complainant of trying to touch her breasts. She told police that the complainant had tried to touch the ‘boobies’ of the cat lady.”

However despite finding the Magistrate Court’s decision was “affected by error”, District Court Judge Katarina Prskalo KC said she was “required to make my own findings of fact”.

Having considered the evidence, she ordered that the findings of guilt against Mr Maggs and Ms Pasitkunlapat were confirmed and the court dismissed their appeals.

Follow @keithjwoods

Originally published as Paul Matthew Maggs and Kanpachira Pasitkunlapat have assault convictions upheld