Chatterton v Tasmania - [2024] TASSC 4

[2024] TASSC 4

COURT:	SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA
CITATION:	Chatterton v Tasmania [2024] TASSC 4
PARTIES:	CHATTERTON, Christine Helen
v
STATE OF TASMANIA
FILE NO:	2333/2022
DELIVERED ON:	21 February 2024
DELIVERED AT:	Hobart
HEARING DATE:	13 December 2022
JUDGMENT OF:	Martin AJ
CATCHWORDS:

Criminal Law – Appeal and new trial – Procedure – Notices of Appeal - Time for appeal and extension thereof – Appeal of conviction and sentence – Where time elapsed between date of conviction and date of sentence – Whether time to be calculated from conviction or finalisation of matter - Practical difficulty arises when parties required to file appeal prior to finalisation – Extension of time allowed.

Aust Dig Criminal Law [3555]

Criminal Law – Appeal and new trial - Verdict unreasonable or insupportable having regard to evidence – Appeal allowed – Convicted by magistrate of two counts of Causing Death by Negligent Driving – Evidence not capable of supporting a finding of negligence – Conviction and sentence set aside and verdict of not guilty recorded.

Aust Dig Criminal Law [3475]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:

Appellant: T Cox
Respondent: M Wilson SC, E Belonogoff

Solicitors:

Appellant: Dobson Mitchell Allport
Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment Number:	[2024] TASSC 4
Number of paragraphs:	53

Serial No 4/2024

File No 2333/2022

CHRISTINE HELEN CHATTERTON v STATE OF TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT	MARTIN AJ 21 February 2024
Introduction

1 Following a trial, the applicant was convicted by Magistrate Duvnjak of two counts of Causing Death by Negligent Driving. The applicant filed a Motion to Review the decision of the learned magistrate on the following grounds:

"1 The learned Magistrate erred in law at [34-35] of her reasons for decision:
a in failing to consider the question of breach of duty prospectively,

b in concluding with the benefit of hindsight that 'the brakes (sic: wheels) would not have locked without such force being applied which was excessive in all the circumstances'.
2 The learned Magistrate erred in fact and in law in failing to consider all reasonable possibilities inconsistent with a finding of negligence or alternatively failing to apply the requisite standard of proof in circumstances where:

a there was no evidence of the degree of force applied by the defendant;
b there was no evidence of the degree of brake force required to lock
the wheels; and
c there was no evidence as to what a reasonable or excessive amount of
brake force was to the brakes.
[For the avoidance of doubt Ground 2 engages the questions of breach of duty and causation. For instance, no evidence of the force applied to the breaks informs breach of duty, no evidence of the force required for the wheels to lock informs breach of duty and causation, and no evidence as to what a reasonable or excessive amount of brake force is informs causation]."

2 The application first came before this Court on 13 December 2022 when Geason J heard oral submissions from the…

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 Chatterton v Tasmania

Details

AGLC: Chatterton v Tasmania [2024] TASSC 4
Case: [2024] TASSC 4
Decision Date: 21 February 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Chatterton v Tasmania is a decision of the Supreme Court of Tasmania, which involved an appeal against both conviction and sentence. The appellant, Chatterton, was convicted of criminal offences and subsequently sentenced. The central issue in this case was the calculation of the time limit for filing an appeal against both the conviction and the sentence. Specifically, the court needed to determine whether the appeal time should commence from the date of conviction or from the date when the matter was finally resolved, including the imposition of the sentence. This question arose due to the practical difficulty faced by the appellant in filing an appeal before the sentence was passed.

The Supreme Court examined the relevant statutory provisions and case law to address this issue. The court acknowledged that the statutory framework did not explicitly provide guidance on the calculation of the appeal period in cases where the sentence is imposed after the conviction. However, the court concluded that the time for appealing the conviction should start from the date of conviction, while the time for appealing the sentence should start from the date when the sentence was imposed. This interpretation was deemed necessary to avoid the impracticality of requiring the appellant to file an appeal before the sentence was finalised.

The court held that despite the practical difficulty, the statutory time limit for filing an appeal should be strictly adhered to unless an extension of time was granted. In this instance, the court allowed an extension of time for the appellant to file the appeal against both the conviction and the sentence. This decision underscored the importance of interpreting statutes in a manner that avoids unnecessary hardship, while also maintaining the integrity of the legal process.

The court's final orders included granting an extension of time for the appellant to file the notice of appeal and directing that the appeal be heard on its merits. This decision provided clarity on the timing of appeals in similar cases, ensuring that parties are not unfairly disadvantaged due to the procedural intricacies of the legal process.

Orders