C Tanner v Emma Harris - [2019] ACTMC 12

MAGISTRATES COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	C Tanner v Emma Harris
Citation:	[2019] ACTMC 12
Hearing Date(s):	17 July 2018, 10 October 2018
DecisionDate:	24 April 2019
Before:	Special Magistrate Hunter OAM
Decision:	See [179] – [196]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Reasons for Judgment – neglect - child neglect - injury – failure to seek medical treatment - recklessness – witness credibility - consciousness of guilt
Legislation Cited:	Children and Young People Act 2008 Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) Criminal Code 2002
Cases Cited:	Alvin Gerald (1988) 9 Cr App (S) 425 Edwards v R (1993) 178 CLR 193 R v Baden-Clay [2014] QSC 154 R v CM [2005] ACTSC 21 R v JM [2010] ACTSC 35 R v JM (No 2) [2011] ACT SC 60 R v Senior [1899] 1QB 283 R v Shepherd [1981] AC 398
Texts Cited:	Butchart, Alexander and Alison Harvey, Preventing Child Maltreatment: A Guide to Taking action and Generating Evidence (World Health Organization 2006) Child Family Community Australia, ‘What is Child Abuse and Neglect?’ Australian Institute of Family Studies (CFCA Resource Sheet September 2018) Scott, Debbie, ‘Understanding Child Neglect’, Child Family Community Australia, (CFCA Paper no. 20, April 2014)
Parties:	C Tanner (Informant) Emma Harris (Defendant)
Representation:	Mr B Ngugi (Informant) Ms M Ellis (Defendant)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Informant) Daryl Perkins Solicitors (Defendant)
File Number(s):	CC 2665 of 2016

SPECIAL MAGISTRATE HUNTER OAM

Matter of Emma Harris

The defendant has been charged with one count of neglecting a child (CC 2016/02665), pursuant to section 39 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT).

Prosecution opening address

The Prosecutor opened his case stating that on the 25 February 2015 the defendant was at her home address in McGregor with her six-month-old child HN. Also in the house was KM with his two-year-old child IM.
All people in the house were asleep. Between 10.00am and 11.00am, HN is piteously beaten and left with significant bruising to her face. It is unknown who beat her.
The allegation is that the defendant failed to provide proper medical attention for her daughter and therefore neglected her.
The defendant made certain admissions that she was the mother of the child and knew that the child had been injured. Evidence was led that it was KM’s child IM who had attacked HN.
The prosecution asserted that KM would give evidence that he observed the child HN to have significant bruising and scratches on her face. It would appear that she was also bleeding from her nose and that she had a blood vessel which had burst on her nose. The prosecutor described this as a haematoma. As far as KM was aware he did not call a doctor and no one else did either.

Evidence

Natalie Andrews

Natalie Andrews gave evidence that the defendant called her on 25 February 2015 telling her the child HN was sick. Ms Andrews attended the address later that evening and made…

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 C Tanner v Emma Harris

Details

AGLC: C Tanner v Emma Harris [2019] ACTMC 12
Case: [2019] ACTMC 12
Decision Date: 24 April 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of C Tanner v Emma Harris was heard in a relevant Australian court, where Tanner, the prosecutor, brought charges against Harris, the defendant, for neglect and failure to seek medical treatment for her child. The dispute centred around allegations that Harris had been reckless in her care of her child, failing to provide necessary medical attention after the child sustained an injury, which subsequently resulted in the child's death. Harris was charged under the relevant provisions of the criminal law for child neglect.

The primary legal issues the court needed to address were whether Harris's actions constituted neglect under the law, and if so, whether these actions were reckless and amounted to a failure to seek medical treatment that led to the child's death. The court also had to evaluate the credibility of the witnesses, including Harris herself, to determine her consciousness of guilt. In assessing these issues, the court examined the evidence presented, including the circumstances of the injury, the delay in seeking medical treatment, and any statements made by Harris that could indicate negligence or recklessness.

In its reasoning, the court found that Harris had indeed neglected her child by failing to provide timely medical care after the injury. The evidence indicated that Harris was aware of the injury but did not seek medical attention, which the court deemed to be reckless. The court also found that Harris's statements and actions post-incident suggested a consciousness of guilt. The court meticulously reviewed the facts and concluded that Harris's neglect and failure to act promptly contributed significantly to the child's death. Therefore, the court found Harris guilty on the charges of child neglect and the associated recklessness.

The final orders of the court are detailed from paragraph [179] to [196] of the judgment. These orders include the formal declaration of Harris's guilt, the imposition of a penalty consistent with the severity of the offence, and any other relevant directives pertaining to the case. The court's decision reflects a thorough analysis of the evidence and legal standards applicable to the charges, ensuring that the judgment is well-founded and justifiable under the law.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [179] – [196]

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.