Bonde v De Bomford - [2019] TASSC 12

[2019] TASSC 12

COURT: SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA

CITATION: Bonde v De Bomford [2019] TASSC 12

PARTIES:  BONDE, Michael
  v
  DE BOMFORD, Nicole Maree

FILE NO:  2364/2018
DELIVERED ON:  9 April 2019
DELIVERED AT:  Launceston
HEARING DATE:  27 November 2018
JUDGMENT OF:  Brett J

CATCHWORDS:

Magistrates – Hearing – Evidence – Other matters – Magistrate was not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the respondent was the driver of a motorcycle – Reasonably open for magistrate to arrive at the conclusion reached.

Phillips v Arnold [2009] TASSC 43, 19 Tas R 21, applied.
Aust Dig Magistrates [1153].

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
           Applicant:  S Thompson
           Respondent:  In Person
Solicitors:
           Applicant:  Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment Number: [2019] TASSC 12
Number of paragraphs: 14

Serial No 12/2019
File No 2364/2018

ACTING SERGEANT MICHAEL BONDE
v NICOLE MAREE DE BOMFORD

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BRETT J

9 April 2019

The respondent was charged with the offences of driving whilst disqualified, using an unregistered motor vehicle and using a motor vehicle with no premium cover. The offences were alleged to have been committed on 7 November 2017. The primary allegation was that she had been riding a motorcycle through the intersection of Patterson Street and Wellington Street, Launceston, when she fell from the motorcycle. The complaint was heard by Magistrate K Stanton on 10 August 2018. His Honour was not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the respondent had been driving the motorcycle at the relevant time, and dismissed the complaint.
The applicant seeks a review of that decision. The sole ground of review is that no magistrate acting reasonably could have been satisfied "other than of the respondent's guilt".
The respondent was unrepresented at the hearing and indeed in respect of this review. The Magistrate, however, provided the respondent with a detailed and balanced explanation of the procedure and her rights in respect of the hearing.
The issue at hearing was whether the respondent was the driver of the motorcycle at the relevant time. The evidence established, without dispute from the respondent, that she was disqualified from driving at that time, and the motorcycle was unregistered and uninsured. Although the respondent did not give or adduce evidence, her case as it appeared from her cross-examination of relevant witnesses, was that she was a passenger on the motorcycle and that it was in fact being driven by her partner, an unidentified male. The magistrate accepted that there was a reasonable possibility that this was in fact the case, and accordingly was not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that she had been driving the motorcycle.
The prosecution called three witnesses in respect of the driving issue. A summary of this evidence is as follows:
· Caroline Eastoe said that at around 7.30pm on 7 November, she was the driver of a motor vehicle which was stationary at the relevant intersection, waiting for the lights to change. She noticed "a motor bike, not speeding, coming across and the next thing the driver of…

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 De Bomford

Details

AGLC: Bonde v De Bomford [2019] TASSC 12
Case: [2019] TASSC 12
Decision Date: 9 April 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Bonde v De Bomford involved a dispute regarding the identity of the driver of a motorcycle at the time of an alleged traffic offence. The matter was heard in a Magistrates Court. The respondent, De Bomford, was charged with driving the motorcycle without a proper licence. De Bomford denied the charge, and the case proceeded to trial where the magistrate was tasked with determining whether the respondent was indeed the driver of the motorcycle at the time of the offence.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the evidence presented was sufficient to establish, beyond reasonable doubt, that De Bomford was the driver of the motorcycle. The court had to consider the credibility of the witnesses, the reliability of the evidence presented, and whether it was reasonably open to the magistrate to conclude that De Bomford was not the driver. The court examined the testimonies given by various witnesses, including any statements made by De Bomford, and evaluated the overall strength of the prosecution's case.

The court found that the magistrate's decision was reasonably open based on the evidence presented. The court determined that the magistrate was not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that De Bomford was the driver of the motorcycle. The evidence was deemed to be inconclusive, with significant uncertainties surrounding the identity of the driver. As a result, the court upheld the magistrate's decision, finding that it was within the scope of the magistrate's power to arrive at the conclusion reached.

The final orders of the court were to dismiss the charge against De Bomford. The court held that the prosecution had not proven the case against De Bomford beyond reasonable doubt, and thus the charge was dismissed. This decision highlights the importance of the standard of proof in criminal cases and the role of the court in ensuring that the accused receives a fair trial.

Orders