Martin Chessell found guilty of resisting arrest

A Mid-North Coast man found guilty of resisting arrest as police investigated allegations he was peering into a woman’s window with a torch has embarked upon a bizarre rant in court.

Martin Chessell, 55.

A Mid-North Coast man has been found guilty of resisting arrest as police investigated allegations he was peering into his neighbour’s window with a torch.

Martin Chessell, 55, pleaded not guilty on October 11 to peep or pry and resisting police after his neighbour at a Port Macquarie residence alleged she caught him peeking through her bedroom window in the dead of night.

Martin Chessell, 55.

Magistrate Georgina Darcy found Chessell guilty of resisting arrest and not guilty of peeping and prying, prompting the Port Macquarie man to storm out of the courtroom.

The court heard that, during the night hours between February 14 and 15, the victim was woken by the sound of footsteps crunching on rocks along the residential footpath outside her home.

She alleged she had woken to see Chessell, flashlight in hand, pressed against her window looking inside.

The complainant contacted her support person soon after, “horrified” by the encounter.

“I was woken by someone walking very slowly and softly outside my bedroom window,” the woman alleged in an email.

“I froze, literally froze, couldn’t say anything, couldn’t move.

“This is out of control … I can’t live in fear.”

The complainant claimed she was able to recognise Chessell immediately, and alleged he was staring into her room for at least 5-10 minutes.

In court Chessell rejected the allegation, saying he barely knows her and has only ever exchanged pleasantries with the neighbour.

Officers then attended Chessell’s home twice to make an arrest.

“He was belligerent and refused to listen,” Constable Jessica Simpson said.

When Senior Constable Matthew Phillips informed Chessell of the complaint, he replied “na, that’s a load of bulls**t” and accused police of having no proof.

On the second visit, police told Chessell they had activated body-worn cameras, to which he responded “I can do the same thing” and whipped out his mobile phone.

“The accused began talking over the top of me again and not making sense,” Sen Cons Phillips said.

Chessell was given the opportunity to go inside to put on a shirt and shoes but refused to let officers in, saying later in court that he feared police would find marijuana he uses for back pain.

Chessell was not charged with any offence in relation to that assertion.

The court heard officers had to pull Chessell away from the door to arrest him, with one officer’s camera knocked to the ground.

Officers say Chessell surrendered his phone as he was escorted to their vehicle, though in court Chessell alleged officers deleted his videos.

A number of witnesses appeared for the hearing including the victim, her support worker, Chessell, and the police who arrested him.

The hearing took place in Port Macquarie Local Court on October 11.

Olivia Slade started the hearing as his solicitor but, after Chessell interjected proceedings multiple times, she stepped down and the offender instead represented himself.

Throughout the hearing Chessell threatened to use his “cop contacts in Sydney” who he claimed are “much higher ranking” than his arresting officers, referred to ICAC paedophilia conspiracies, made allegations of police assault, and claimed he wasn’t getting a fair trial.

Ms Darcy noted Chessell’s “tangents” produced little in the way of usable evidence, and his tendency to interrupt witnesses during cross-examination left the complainant feeling “frustrated”.

Ms Darcy said she preferred the victim’s evidence but noted Chessell’s criminal record was “quite limited”.

After the hearing, the magistrate found Chessell not guilty of the peep and pry charge and it was dismissed.

However, he was found guilty of resisting arrest, convicted, and fined $400.

A two-year apprehended personal violence order was also put in place between the offender and complainant.

Chessell asked how he was supposed to access his home, given he walks along that same pathway past the complainant’s window to reach the unit, to which the magistrate suggested he seek legal advice.