Attorney-General v Barnes - [2023] TASSC 2

[2023] TASSC 2

COURT:	SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA
CITATION:	Attorney-General v Barnes [2023] TASSC 2
PARTIES:	THE HONOURABLE ELISE ARCHER
ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF TASMANIA
v
BARNES, Alisha
FILE NO:	3001/2022
DELIVERED ON:	2 March 2023
DELIVERED AT:	Hobart
HEARING DATE:	14 December 2022
JUDGMENT OF:	Wood J
CATCHWORDS:

Administrative Law – Prerogative writs and orders – Certiorari – Grounds for certiorari to quash – Excess of want of jurisdiction – Particular matters where no defect of jurisdiction - Coronial inquest – Issue of summonses to witnesses by coroner's associate for purpose of "taking a deposition" said to be outside statutory power and an abuse of process – "Taking a deposition" falls within statutory power and is "for the purposes of an inquest" – Alternative remedy available – Summonses may be set aside by coroner.

Coroners Act 1995 (Tas) s 13, 15(4)(c), 53(1).
Priest v West [2012] VSCA 327, 40 VR 521, referred to.

Aust Dig Administrative Law [1228]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:

Prosecutor: P Turner SC, D Osz
Respondent: L Mackey

Solicitors:

Prosecutor: Solicitor-General
Respondent: Ogilvie Jennings

Judgment Number:	[2023] TASSC 2
Number of paragraphs:	70

Serial No 2/2023

File No 3001/2022

ATTORNEY GENERAL v ALISHA BARNES

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT	WOOD J 2 March 2023
Introduction

1 This proceeding concerns the conduct of a coroner's associate, Alisha Barnes, Associate to Coroner R Webster, in issuing summonses to nine medical practitioners to attend court either as witnesses or to produce documents in connection with an inquest. It was explained in a covering letter that this was for the purpose of "taking a deposition" from them on oath. This was to be done when an affidavit or statutory declaration from the medical practitioners had not been prepared. The usual purpose of issuing a summons to a witness is for the witness to attend an inquest to give evidence against a background where an affidavit or statutory declaration has been prepared and disclosed to the parties. The Honourable Attorney-General contends that the coroner's associate has exceeded her power and seeks correction by bringing these proceedings before the Court.

The proceedings

2 An application for relief in the nature of a writ of certiorari or other relief is brought under Pt 26, r 623 of the Supreme Court Rules 2000 on behalf of the Attorney-General. On 9 November 2022, the learned Chief Justice made a general order to show cause why the summonses should not be set aside and the decision to issue them quashed. His Honour also made an order that the summonses be stayed and an order requiring service of the general order and other documents. In compliance with the general order, the order and other documents were served on the coroner's associate as the defendant to these proceedings and his Honour Coroner Webster. Coroner Webster has provided notice submitting to the jurisdiction of the Court. The coroner's associate is represented by counsel and so is the Attorney-General.
3 The general order specified…

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 Attorney-General v Barnes

Details

AGLC: Attorney-General v Barnes [2023] TASSC 2
Case: [2023] TASSC 2
Decision Date: 2 March 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Attorney-General v Barnes involved a dispute over the issuance of summonses to witnesses by a coroner's associate for the purpose of taking depositions as part of a coronial inquest. The dispute was heard by the Supreme Court of Victoria. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the coroner's associate had the statutory authority to issue such summonses and, if not, whether the actions amounted to an abuse of process warranting judicial intervention.

The court examined the statutory framework governing coronial inquests and determined that the term "taking a deposition" fell within the statutory powers granted to the coroner. The court found that the purpose of the summonses, which was to gather evidence for the inquest, aligned with the statutory objectives. Consequently, the court concluded that there was no defect of jurisdiction or abuse of process that warranted the issuance of a prerogative writ to quash the summonses. The court also noted that an alternative remedy was available, as the coroner could set aside the summonses if deemed necessary.

Given the findings, the court dismissed the application for certiorari and other prerogative writs and orders. The decision underscored the importance of adhering to statutory mandates while also acknowledging the inherent flexibility of the coroner's role in managing inquests. The court's ruling affirmed the coroner's authority to issue deposition summonses within the confines of the statutory framework.

Orders