Cannell v G; G v Cannell - [2018] TASSC 55

[2018] TASSC 55

COURT: SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA

CITATION: Cannell v G; G v Cannell [2018] TASSC 55

PARTIES: CANNELL, Lauren
v

G
G
v
CANNELL, Lauren

FILE NOS: 1583/2017

1758/2017

DELIVERED ON:  1 November 2018
DELIVERED AT:  Launceston
HEARING DATE:  1 March 2018
JUDGMENT OF:  Brett J

CATCHWORDS:

Magistrates – Appeal and review – Motion to review – Tasmania – Procedure and evidence – Matters relating to decision – Duty to state reasons – Competing versions of alleged incidents – Magistrate not required to refer to every piece of evidence and every issue raised by the parties – Magistrate expressed reasons clearly and with sufficient detail.
Robinson v Chatters [2010] TASSC 66, applied.
Aust Dig Magistrates [1349]
Criminal Law – General matters – Criminal liability and capacity – Mens rea – Statutory offences – Generally – Family violence offences – "Meaning of harass" – Requisite mental element is that defendant intended to do the act that constitutes "harassing", in this case following the complainant – Finding that defendant had harassed the complainant clearly open to magistrate.
Family Violence Act 2004 (Tas), ss 4 and 35.
He Kaw Teh v The Queen (1985) 157 CLR 523, followed.
Johnson v Collier [1997] 142 FLR 409, referred to.
Aust Dig Criminal Law [2003]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Applicant/Respondent:  E Bill
             Respondent/Applicant:  M Doyle
Solicitors:
             Applicant/Respondent:  Director of Public Prosecutions
             Respondent/Applicant:  Clarke & Gee Lawyers

Judgment Number: [2018] TASSC 55
Number of paragraphs: 65

Serial No 55/2018
File Nos 1583/2017
1758/2017

SERGEANT LAUREN CANNELL v A G
A G v SERGEANT LAUREN CANNELL

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BRETT J

1 November 2018

G (who, for the sake of convenience will hereinafter be referred to as the defendant), and his former wife (the complainant), separated some time between 2012 and April 2015. Although they may have separated earlier, they continued to live under the same roof until April 2015.
There are three children of the marriage, C, S, and J. The break-up of the marriage and its aftermath was acrimonious, attended by significant on-going conflict. Some of this conflict related to arrangements concerning the contact by each party with the children.
The defendant was charged on multiple complaints with a number of offences arising out of this conflict. In aggregate, there were four complaints which charged him with five separate offences. The offences were alleged to have been committed between 12 June 2015 and 18 April 2016. The defendant pleaded guilty to one of the charges (a charge of trespass on complaint 33548/15), and not guilty to the balance. The remaining charges were heard by Magistrate S Cure in a joint hearing conducted over several days in 2016 and 2017. On 19 May 2017, her Honour decided that two of the charges had been proved, and dismissed the remaining two charges. Detailed reasons were provided for each decision.
The police officers who brought the complaints (to whom I will collectively refer as the prosecution)…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Cannell v G; G v Cannell and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2018] TASSC 55
Decision Date: 1 November 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the recent case of Cannell v G; G v Cannell, the parties were involved in a dispute which was ultimately appealed to and reviewed by the Magistrates Court of Tasmania. The primary issue was whether the magistrate had adequately fulfilled the duty to state reasons for their decision, particularly in the context of competing versions of events presented by both parties. The case was initiated when the respondent sought a review of the magistrate’s decision. The respondent argued that the magistrate had failed to address certain pieces of evidence and issues raised during the proceedings.

The court had to decide whether the magistrate's reasons for decision were sufficiently detailed and clear, particularly in light of the competing versions of the incident. The respondent contended that the magistrate had not adequately referred to every piece of evidence and every issue raised by the parties. The court examined whether the magistrate was required to explicitly address each piece of evidence and each issue raised, or if the reasons provided were sufficient as long as they clearly and comprehensively explained the decision. The central legal issue revolved around the adequacy of the reasons given by the magistrate and whether they met the required standard under the law.

The court concluded that the magistrate had expressed their reasons clearly and with sufficient detail. It was not necessary for the magistrate to refer to every piece of evidence and every issue raised by the parties, as long as the overall reasons provided were comprehensible and sufficiently detailed. The court found that the reasons given by the magistrate were adequate, and therefore dismissed the motion for review. The court’s decision underscores that the requirement to provide reasons must be balanced with the need for a coherent and logically structured explanation of the decision-making process.

No specific orders were made beyond the dismissal of the motion for review, as the court found that the magistrate's reasons were adequate as per the legal standards. This case serves as a reminder of the importance of providing clear and detailed reasons in judicial decisions, particularly in the context of competing evidence and issues.

Orders