COURT: SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA (COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL)
CITATION: Anderson v Tasmania [2020] TASCCA 11
PARTIES: ANDERSON, Bruce Paton v STATE OF TASMANIA
FILE NO: 188/2020 DELIVERED ON: 17 July 2020 DELIVERED AT: Hobart HEARING DATE: 1 June 2020 JUDGMENT OF: Blow CJ, Brett J, Porter AJ
CATCHWORDS:
Criminal Law – Evidence – Matters relating to proof – Miscellaneous matters – Other cases – Delay in complaint and prosecution – Significant forensic disadvantage as a consequence of delay – Three particular consequences identified at trial – Trial judge found no significant forensic disadvantage in respect of two aspects but finding made as to third – Whether trial judge erred in findings of no disadvantage – Whether sufficient directions given as to third aspect – No error shown.
Criminal Law – Appeal and new trial – Verdict unreasonable or not supportable having regard to evidence – Other matters – Ground of appeal that verdicts "unsafe and unsatisfactory" – Argued that verdicts unreasonable or unsupportable but by virtue of matters said to amount to a miscarriage of justice – Verdicts not unreasonable or unsupportable having regard to the evidence – No deficiencies or irregularities in the conduct of the trial constituting a miscarriage of justice – Use of the phrase "unsafe and unsatisfactory" in ground of appeal generally misleading and inappropriate.
Criminal Law – Appeal and new trial – Particular grounds of appeal – Misdirection and non-direction – Presentation of defence case – Allegation of biased summing up because of time spent on Crown case compared to that of accused – Where jury reminded of most of evidence in short case – No misdirection or miscarriage of justice – Summing up reflected relative times spent on respective cases – Appellant's case adequately and fairly put to jury. R v Meher [2004] NSWCCA 355; Riley v Tasmania [2020] TASCCA 1, applied. Aust Dig Criminal Law [3484]
REPRESENTATION:
Counsel: Appellant: T Kovacic Respondent: J Ransom Solicitors: Appellant: Leonard Fernandez Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions
Judgment Number: [2020] TASCCA 11 Number of paragraphs: 149
Serial No 11/2020
File No 188/2020
BRUCE PATON ANDERSON v STATE OF TASMANIA
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
BLOW CJ BRETT J PORTER AJ 17 July 2020
Order of the Court
Appeal dismissed.
Serial No 11/2020
File No 188/2020
BRUCE PATON ANDERSON v STATE OF TASMANIA
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
BLOW CJ 17 July 2020
I agree with the other members of the Court that this appeal should be dismissed. I…
Grounds of appeal
[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.
[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.
[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.
Consideration
[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.
[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.
Continue reading Anderson v Tasmania
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Anderson v Tasmania [2020] TASCCA 11
Case
[2020] TASCCA 11
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Anderson (the appellant) appealed against his conviction for sexual offences. The appeal concerned the trial judge's findings regarding the appellant's alleged forensic disadvantage arising from a delay in the complaint and prosecution of the offences. The appellant argued that the trial judge erred in finding that he had not suffered significant forensic disadvantage in relation to two aspects, and that insufficient directions were given to the jury concerning the third aspect of disadvantage.
The central legal issues before the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Tasmania were whether the trial judge had erred in her findings that the appellant had not suffered significant forensic disadvantage due to the delay in the complaint and prosecution, and whether the directions given to the jury regarding the identified disadvantage were sufficient.
The Full Court considered the trial judge's findings in relation to the three specific consequences of delay identified by the appellant. It was noted that the trial judge had made a finding of disadvantage in relation to one aspect, but not the other two. The Full Court reviewed the evidence and the trial judge's reasoning, ultimately concluding that no error had been demonstrated in the trial judge's findings of no significant forensic disadvantage in respect of the two aspects in question. Furthermore, the Court found that the directions given to the jury concerning the third aspect of disadvantage were sufficient.