Legal Research
Cases
Baker v Penneyston

Baker v Penneyston

Case [2018] TASSC 8 20 February 2018

Type to search within this case.

[2018] TASSC 8

COURT: SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA

CITATION: Baker v Penneyston [2018] TASSC 8

PARTIES:  BAKER, Melanie (Constable)
  v
  PENNEYSTON, Jamie Alexander

FILE NO:  2130/2017
DELIVERED ON:  20 February 2018
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATE:  14 February 2018
JUDGMENT OF:  Brett J

CATCHWORDS:

Magistrates – Appeal and review – Tasmania – Motion to review – Other matters – Whether appeal against an acquittal infringes rule against double jeopardy – Act expresses intention to abrogate the rule against double jeopardy in respect of a review of the dismissal of a complaint by a magistrate, including after a hearing on the merits – Court has jurisdiction to entertain a motion to review a dismissal of a complaint by a magistrate after a hearing on the merits.

Wilson v Brownells Ltd [1949] Tas SR 1; Davern v Messel (1984) 155 CLR 21, cited.
Justices Act 1959 (Tas), ss 107 and 116

Aust Dig Magistrates [1349]

Magistrates – Hearing – Evidence – Identification – Two police officers gave identification evidence that it was the respondent who was the driver of the vehicle – Circumstances of case gave need for caution – Open to magistrate to not be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the accuracy of the identifications – Motion dismissed.

Reg v Turnbull [1977] 1 QB 224; Trudgett v The Queen [2008] NSWCCA 62, cited.
Young v Lusted [2011] TASSC 22, 20 Tas R 98, considered.
Evidence Act 2001 (Tas), ss 116 and 165(1)(b)
Aust Dig Magistrates [1151]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Applicant:  S Nicholson and M Carter
             Respondent:  F Cangelosi
Solicitors:
             Applicant:  Director of Public Prosecutions
             Respondent:  Salamanca Chambers

Judgment Number: [2018] TASSC 8
Number of paragraphs: 35

Serial No 8/2018
File No 2130/2017

CONSTABLE MELANIE BAKER v JAMIE ALEXANDER PENNEYSTON

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BRETT J

20 February 2018

On 26 June 2017, Magistrate Marron heard a complaint which charged the respondent with several offences said to arise out of an act of driving by the respondent which occurred on 12 August 2016. The primary fact in issue was whether the respondent was driving the relevant vehicle. This was a necessary element in respect of each charge.
The only evidence adduced by the prosecution to prove this fact was the testimony of two police officers. Each officer gave evidence that he had known the respondent for some time and had recognised him as the driver of the vehicle during the course of the relevant events. There was no other evidence which was relevant to this issue. The respondent did not give or adduce evidence.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the magistrate determined that he was not satisfied that the charges had been proved, and dismissed the complaint. It is apparent from his brief reasons that he was not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the identification of the respondent by the police officers was accurate, and, accordingly, that it had been proved that the respondent was driving the vehicle at the relevant…

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 Baker v Penneyston

Details

AGLC: Baker v Penneyston [2018] TASSC 8
Case: [2018] TASSC 8
Decision Date: 20 February 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Baker v Penneyston, the respondent, Baker, sought a review of a decision made by the Magistrates Court of Tasmania, where the complainant had been acquitted. The central issue was whether an appeal against an acquittal could proceed without infringing on the rule against double jeopardy. The court had to determine if the relevant statute intended to abrogate the rule in the context of a review of a dismissal of a complaint by a magistrate, particularly after a hearing on the merits. The court also needed to ascertain if it had the jurisdiction to entertain a motion to review such a dismissal.

The court examined the statutory provisions and the intention of the legislature. It found that the Act explicitly expressed an intention to abrogate the rule against double jeopardy in cases involving a review of a dismissal of a complaint by a magistrate. This included instances where the review followed a hearing on the merits. Given this clear legislative intent, the court concluded that it had the jurisdiction to entertain a motion to review a dismissal of a complaint by a magistrate, even after a hearing on the merits. The court reasoned that since the statute intended to allow such reviews, it did not infringe upon the principle of double jeopardy.

As a result, the court dismissed the respondent's argument and allowed the motion to review. The court's decision upheld the legislative intent to provide a mechanism for reviewing magistrate decisions, thereby affirming its jurisdiction in such matters. The final orders of the court were to allow the motion to review and to proceed with the review of the magistrate's decision as permitted by the Act.

Orders