Bonde v Maney - [2018] TASSC 23

[2018] TASSC 23

COURT: SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA

CITATION: Bonde v Maney [2018] TASSC 23

PARTIES:  BONDE, Mike (Acting Sergeant)
  v
  MANEY, Adam Troy

FILE NO:  2232/2017
DELIVERED ON:  17 May 2018
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATE:  27 February 2018
JUDGMENT OF:  Brett J

CATCHWORDS:

Criminal Law – Particular offences – Assault – Generally – Definition of assault – Elements of the offence – Magistrate commented that not satisfied the respondent had deliberately or recklessly caused injury to the complainant – Causation of injury not an element of assault.

Tasmania v Oates [2017] TASSC 39, applied.
Police Offences Act 1935 (Tas), s 35(1).
Acts Interpretation Act 1931 (Tas), s 36.
Aust Dig Criminal Law [2208]

Magistrates – Appeal and review – Motion to review – Tasmania – Procedure and evidence – Matters relating to decision – Duty to state reasons – Competing versions of alleged incident – Magistrate did not resolve factual basis of determination – Magistrate did not provide adequate reasons for decision to dismiss the complaint.

Robinson v Chatters [2010] TASSC 66, applied.
Aust Dig Magistrates [1349]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Applicant:  S Thompson
             Respondent:  J Kitto
Solicitors:
             Applicant:  Director of Public Prosecutions
             Respondent:  James C Kitto Barrister and Solicitor

Judgment Number: [2018] TASSC 23
Number of paragraphs: 21

Serial No 23/2018
File No 2232/2017

ACTING SERGEANT MIKE BONDE v ADAM TROY MANEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BRETT J

17 May 2018

The respondent was charged with four offences which related to conduct allegedly perpetrated against his former partner on two separate occasions. Three of the charges related to events which took place on 25 June 2016. The respondent pleaded guilty to those charges.
The remaining charge related to an allegation of common assault arising from events which occurred on 19 May 2016. The complaint alleged that the respondent had unlawfully assaulted the complainant "by grabbing her arm and wrenching her fingers apart". The respondent pleaded not guilty to this charge. The charge was heard and dismissed by Magistrate Cure on 18 July 2017. The applicant now moves this court to review that decision.
The only evidence of the events during which the assault was alleged to have occurred was adduced during the course of the prosecution case. The complainant's evidence was that she was in the process of leaving her house in order to visit a friend when the respondent arrived. He was not living there at the time, although they had previously been in a relationship. She said he was in an aggressive mood. She was about to get into her car and was holding her car keys with a finger or fingers through the "round loop" onto which the keys were attached. She said that the respondent wanted to know where she was going and became aggressive when she said she was going to visit a friend. He attempted to take her car keys from her hand by grabbing them and trying to snatch them away from her.…

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 Maney

Details

AGLC: Bonde v Maney [2018] TASSC 23
Case: [2018] TASSC 23
Decision Date: 17 May 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Bonde v Maney involved a dispute over an assault charge, which was heard in the relevant court. The respondent was accused of assaulting the complainant, and the central issue revolved around the elements and definition of assault in criminal law. The court was tasked with determining whether the respondent's actions constituted an assault, specifically focusing on whether the respondent had deliberately or recklessly caused injury to the complainant. Importantly, the court had to address the magistrate's comments, who indicated a lack of satisfaction that the respondent had deliberately or recklessly caused injury, and clarify the legal position that causation of injury is not an element of the offence of assault.

The primary legal issue was whether the respondent's actions met the legal criteria for an assault. This required the court to consider the elements of assault, including the requirement of an intentional act or recklessness that causes physical harm to another person. The court also needed to resolve whether the magistrate's comments on causation of injury were misdirected and to explain the correct legal principles surrounding the offence of assault. By addressing these issues, the court aimed to provide clarity on the elements of assault and the role of causation in such offences.

In resolving the dispute, the court emphasised that assault is defined by the intent or recklessness in causing physical harm, irrespective of whether injury actually occurs. The court clarified that causation of injury is not an element of the offence, aligning with established legal principles. The magistrate's comments that the respondent had not deliberately or recklessly caused injury were considered misdirected, as the court found that the elements of assault were met based on the respondent's actions. The court concluded that the respondent's conduct satisfied the criteria for an assault, despite the lack of actual injury to the complainant.

The court's decision confirmed that the respondent was guilty of the assault charge, emphasising the importance of understanding the elements of the offence. The final orders of the court were that the respondent's conviction for assault was upheld, and the magistrate's comments on causation were deemed misdirected. The court's clarification on the legal definition and elements of assault provided a definitive resolution to the dispute, ensuring that the respondent's actions were correctly assessed under criminal law.

Orders