Legal Research
Cases
Bell v Tasmania

Bell v Tasmania

Case [2019] TASCCA 19 15 November 2019

Statutory Construction

Criminal Law

Statutory Interpretation

Type to search within this case.

[2019] TASCCA 19

COURT: SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA (COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL)

CITATION: Bell v Tasmania [2019] TASCCA 19

PARTIES:  BELL, Chauncey Aaron
  v
  STATE OF TASMANIA

FILE NO:  CCA 2181/2019
DELIVERED ON:  15 November 2019
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATE:  7 October 2019
JUDGMENT OF:  Pearce J, Brett J, Martin AJ

CATCHWORDS:

Criminal Law – General matters – Criminal liability and capacity – Defence matters – Ignorance and mistake of fact – Availability of defence of honest and reasonable mistake – Generally – Act a criminal offence regardless of mistaken belief – Mistaken belief did not excuse crime charged.

Criminal Code 1924 (Tas), s 14.
Proudman v Dayman (1941) 67 CLR 536; Bergin v Stack (1953) 88 CLR 248; CTM v The Queen [2008] HCA 25, 236 CLR 440, applied.
Aust Dig Criminal Law [2064]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Appellant:  K Baumeler
             Respondent:  D G Coates SC
Solicitors:
             Respondent:  Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment Number: [2019] TASCCA 19
Number of paragraphs: 71

Serial No 19/2019
File No CCA 2181/2019

CHAUNCEY AARON BELL v STATE OF TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

PEARCE J
BRETT J
MARTIN AJ
15 November 2019

Order of the Court

Appeal dismissed.

Serial No 19/2019
File No CCA 2181/2019

CHAUNCEY AARON BELL v STATE OF TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

PEARCE J
15 November 2019

I agree with Brett J and Martin AJ that the appeal should be dismissed. I agree with the reasons of Martin AJ.
The appellant was found guilty by a jury of one count of supplying a controlled drug to a child contrary to the Misuse of Drugs Act 2001, s 14. Because, as will be explained, an offence against the Misuse of Drugs Act, s 14, is an indictable offence, the Criminal Code applies to it: Criminal Code Act 1924, ss 2 and 4. Chapter IV of the Code is entitled "Criminal Responsibility" and includes s 14 which provides:
"14 Mistake of fact
Whether criminal responsibility is entailed by an act or omission done or made under an honest and reasonable, but mistaken, belief in the existence of any state of facts the existence of which would excuse such act or omission, is a question of law, to be determined on the construction of the statute constituting the offence."
As was explained in R v Martin [1963] Tas SR 103, s 14 refers to mistake of fact in terms which assume its existence as a ground of exculpation.
The Crown case against the appellant was that he injected a female aged 15 with methylamphetamine. The Misuse of Drugs Act, s 3(1), contains a number of relevant definitions. Methylamphetamine is a controlled drug: Sch 1, Pt 2, item 172. To "supply" a drug includes to administer it. A "child" is a person who has not attained the age of 18 years. The trial judge directed the jury that it was necessary for 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 Bell v Tasmania

Details

AGLC: Bell v Tasmania [2019] TASCCA 19
Case: [2019] TASCCA 19
Decision Date: 15 November 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Bell was the applicant and Tasmania was the respondent in proceedings before the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Tasmania. The dispute concerned the applicant's conviction for an offence under the *Traffic (Miscellaneous) Act 1968* (Tas). The applicant sought to rely on a defence of honest and reasonable mistake of fact, arguing that he held a mistaken belief about a relevant fact which, if true, would have rendered his conduct lawful.

The central legal issue before the Full Court was whether the defence of honest and reasonable mistake of fact was available to the applicant in the circumstances of the offence charged. Specifically, the Court had to determine if the applicant's mistaken belief, even if honestly and reasonably held, could negate criminal liability for the offence under the *Traffic (Miscellaneous) Act 1968* (Tas), given that the act itself was criminal regardless of any mistaken belief.

The Court reasoned that the defence of honest and reasonable mistake of fact is not available where the statute creating the offence does not contemplate such a defence, and where the act itself is inherently criminal. Applying this principle, the Court found that the offence charged was one where the *mens rea* was not an element that could be displaced by a mistake of fact. Therefore, the applicant's mistaken belief, even if honest and reasonable, did not excuse the commission of the crime. The Court dismissed the appeal.

Orders