Bonde v Bluett - [2019] TASSC 14

[2019] TASSC 14

COURT: SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA

CITATION: Bonde v Bluett [2019] TASSC 14

PARTIES:  BONDE, Michael
  v
  BLUETT, Daniel James

FILE NO:  LCA 2348/2018
DELIVERED ON:  10 April 2019
DELIVERED AT:  Launceston
HEARING DATE:  4 April 2019
JUDGMENT OF:  Brett J

CATCHWORDS:

Magistrates – Appeal and review – Motion to review – Tasmania – Procedure and evidence – Matters relating to decision – Duty to state reasons – Question of self-defence – Not possible to determine from the magistrate's reasons as to whether the magistrate has given any or any adequate consideration to the question of the reasonableness of the force used by the respondent "in the circumstances as he believes them to be" – Matter remitted to the magistrate to furnish this Court with further and better reasons.

Robinson v Chatters [2010] TASSC 66; Walsh v The Queen [1993] TASSC 91, applied.

Aust Digest Magistrates [1349]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Applicant:  S Thompson
             Respondent:  F McCracken
Solicitors:
             Applicant:  Director of Public Prosecutions
             Respondent:  Grant Tucker

Judgment Number: [2019] TASSC 14
Number of paragraphs: 17

Serial No 14/2019
File No LCA 2348/2018

ACTING SERGEANT MICHAEL BONDE v DANIEL JAMES BLUETT

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BRETT J

10 April 2019

The respondent was charged on complaint with two counts of common assault. The charges arose out of events which occurred in the Launceston CBD in the early hours of 24 February 2018. The prosecution allegation was that the respondent had assaulted two women within a short time of each other, by punching each to the head. The complaint was heard by Magistrate K Stanton over three separate days in August 2018. On 14 August 2018, at the conclusion of the hearing, his Honour gave an immediate decision with ex tempore reasons. He found the first count proved but was not satisfied that guilt had been proved in respect of the other count. That count was dismissed.
The applicant now seeks a review of the decision to dismiss the second count.
A summary of the prosecution case is as follows. The relevant events occurred at about 3.40am at a taxi rank in the CBD. A large number of people were queued at the rank for the purpose of catching a taxi. The respondent had attended a number of social venues that night and had consumed some alcohol. He was not actually in the queue but was standing near it. For reasons which were disputed in the hearing, he became involved in an argument with a female, who is the complainant in respect of count 1. I will refer to her as the first complainant. She had also been enjoying a social night out and had consumed some alcohol. During the course of the argument, the respondent struck her to the face causing her to fall to the ground unconscious. In his testimony at the hearing, the respondent claimed that he had attempted to walk away from the first complainant during the course…

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 Bonde v Bluett

Details

AGLC: Bonde v Bluett [2019] TASSC 14
Case: [2019] TASSC 14
Decision Date: 10 April 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Bonde v Bluett, the dispute arose from a decision made by a magistrate in the Magistrates Court of Tasmania. The primary contention was whether the magistrate had adequately considered the issue of self-defence and the reasonableness of the force used by the respondent under the circumstances as he perceived them. The appellant, Bonde, sought a review of the magistrate's decision, arguing that the reasons provided were insufficient to determine whether the requisite considerations were appropriately applied.

The legal issues at the core of this case involved the duty of a magistrate to provide adequate reasons for their decision, particularly when considering the defence of self-defence and the proportionality of the force used. The appellant contended that the magistrate had not sufficiently articulated whether the force used was reasonable in the context of the respondent's perceived circumstances. The court was tasked with determining whether the magistrate's decision-making process was transparent enough to permit effective judicial review.

The court found that the magistrate's reasons did not sufficiently elucidate the process by which the question of self-defence and the reasonableness of the force was considered. The lack of clarity in the reasons meant that it was not possible to ascertain whether the magistrate had given adequate consideration to these issues. Consequently, the court determined that the matter should be remitted back to the magistrate to provide further and better reasons that explicitly address the question of self-defence and the reasonableness of the force used. This ensures that the decision-making process is transparent and capable of judicial scrutiny.

The final orders of the court mandated that the magistrate provide further and better reasons to address the specific concerns raised by the appellant regarding the consideration of self-defence and the proportionality of the force used. The matter was remitted for the magistrate to furnish these additional reasons, allowing for a comprehensive review of the decision.

Orders