Legal Research
Cases
Baker v Smith

Baker v Smith

Case [2025] TASSC 43 18 September 2025

Duty of Owner

Obligations of Police

Privilege Against Self-Incrimination

Right to Silence

Traffic Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

[2025] TASSC 43

COURT:	SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA
CITATION:	Baker v Smith [2025] TASSC 43
PARTIES:	BAKER, Jordie Carl
v
SMITH, Andrew (Sergeant)
FILE NO:	2688/2024
DELIVERED ON:	18 September 2025
DELIVERED AT:	Hobart
HEARING DATE:	24 July 2025
JUDGMENT OF:	Cuthbertson J
CATCHWORDS:

Traffic law – Offences – Particular offences – Failure to supply other information or giving false information – Duty of owner to give information – Information to identify driver – Ambit of duty – Obligations of police – Form of demand – Allegation offence committed as the driver or occupant of a motor vehicle – Privilege against self-incrimination – Right to silence.

Police Offences Act 1935, ss 37G and 37GA.
Aust Dig Traffic Law [1207]

Magistrates – Appeal and review – Tasmania – Motion to review – Other matters – Police Offences Act 1935 (Tas), s 37G - Applicant found guilty of failing to comply with a driver demand notice - Where the magistrate found that the notice of demand was issued validly by the officer and was not complied with - Findings of the magistrate reasonably open - A magistrate acting reasonably could have found the complaint proved - Appeal dismissed.

Aust Dig Magistrates [1349]

Legislation:
Acts Interpretation Act 1931 (Tas)
Justices Act 1959 (Tas)
Police Offences Act 1935 (Tas)
Road Safety (Alcohol and Drugs) Act 1970 (Tas)
Traffic Act 1925 (Tas)

Vehicle and Traffic Act 1999 (Tas)

Cases:
Arachchi v Orlowski [2003] VSC 161
Arnesto v Hickman [2016] TASSC 26
Aviation Consolidated Holdings Pty Ltd v McMullen [2025] TASFC 6
Bob Brown Foundation v Barnett (No 2) [2023] TASSC 6
Bonde v De Bomford [2019] TASSC 12
Coco v The Queen [1994] HCA 15; 179 CLR 427
Commissioner of Taxation v Citibank Ltd (1988) 20 FCR 403
DPP (NSW) v Hammoud [2006] NSWSC 562
E v Jordan [2009] TASSC 61
Petty v The Queen [1991] HCA 34; 173 CLR 95
Phillips v Arnold [2009] TASSC 43; 19 Tas R 21
R v Davis [1976] 1 NSWLR 84
Woon v The Queen [1964] HCA 23; 109 CLR 529

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:

Applicant: S Wright
Respondent: J Thompson

Solicitors:

Applicant: SGW Law
Respondent: Office of Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment Number:	[2025] TASSC 43
Number of paragraphs:	88

Serial No 43/2025 File No 2688/2024

JORDIE CARL BAKER v SERGEANT ANDREW SMITH

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT	CUTHBERTSON J 18 September 2025
Introduction

1 On 23 August 2024, Magistrate Edwards found the applicant guilty of failing to comply with a driver demand notice contrary to s 37G(1) of the Police Offences Act 1993. The charge concerned a notice served by a police officer, Constable Joel Young, on the applicant as the owner or registered operator of a vehicle which had been involved in a single vehicle crash at Wynyard on 18 March 2023. Police had attended the site of the crash on that date, but the driver had left the scene. The notice, which was served on the…

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 Smith

Details

AGLC: Baker v Smith [2025] TASSC 43
Case: [2025] TASSC 43
Decision Date: 18 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Baker versus Smith, the case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The dispute centred around the defendant's failure to provide information required under traffic law. Specifically, Smith was alleged to have failed to supply information and instead provided false information to the police, which led to charges against him. The plaintiff, Baker, sought to enforce the defendant's duty to provide accurate information to identify the driver in question, which was argued to be an integral part of the defendant's obligations under the law.

The primary legal issues that the court had to address involved the scope of the defendant's duty to provide information to the police and the obligations of the police in demanding such information. It was also necessary to determine whether the privilege against self-incrimination and the right to silence could be invoked in this context. The court needed to clarify the extent to which the defendant was required to identify the driver and whether the police had correctly demanded the information in a manner consistent with the law.

The court ruled that the defendant's duty to provide information was indeed broad and included the obligation to identify the driver. The court found that the police had correctly demanded this information, and the defendant's failure to comply constituted an offence. The court emphasised that the privilege against self-incrimination did not apply in this situation, as the information sought was not intended to incriminate the defendant but to identify the driver. Consequently, the court found in favour of the plaintiff, affirming the defendant's liability under traffic law for failing to provide accurate information.

The court's final orders required the defendant to comply with the statutory obligations to provide the necessary information to identify the driver and clarified that the defendant's rights under the privilege against self-incrimination did not extend to this context. The court also highlighted the importance of the police adhering to proper procedures when demanding such information.

Orders