Atkins v Protected Person

The appellant, Atkins, appeals a decision of a Magistrate to confirm an interim intervention order made against him on 29 April 2019. The protected person, who had been engaged by the appellant as her solicitor between 2011 and 2014, applied for the intervention order on 17 April 2019. The protected person relied on a series of communications sent by the appellant to her and various third parties as the basis for the application. The appellant opposed the application and the matter proceeded to trial. The trial was narrowly focussed on whether the contents of the communications and their impact on the protected person were sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the Intervention Orders (Prevention of Abuse) Act 2009 (SA). The primary issue for the court was whether the Magistrate erred in confirming the intervention order. The court considered the evidence of both the protected person and the appellant, and the relevant provisions of the Act. The court found that the Magistrate was not required to resolve any significant conflict between the evidence of the two parties in assessing the evidence. The court also found that the Magistrate had made findings that were open to him and that there was no error in his approach and assessment of the evidence of the protected person.

The appeal was dismissed and the intervention order was confirmed. The court found that none of the grounds of appeal were made out and that there were no special reasons for departing from the preponderance of authority on this topic. The court granted an extension of time for the appeal and considered the grounds of appeal as formulated by the respondent. The court found that the Magistrate had made findings that were open to him and that there was no error in his approach and assessment of the evidence of the protected person. The court also found that the unusual nature and impact of an intervention order may of itself be a sufficient basis for a granting of permission to appeal. However, in this case, the court found that there were no special reasons for departing from the preponderance of authority on this topic. The appeal was dismissed and the intervention order was confirmed.