Goldberg v Howells - [2003] VSC 414

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

No. 7573 of 2002

DAVID GOLDBERG	Plaintiff
V
GARETH HOWELLS & THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA	Defendants

---

JUDGE:	SMITH J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	14 & 16 October 2003
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	28 October 2003
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Goldberg v Howells & Anor
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2003] VSC 414

---

Judicial Review – County Court – appeal from Magistrate -error on face of record – natural justice.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
Plaintiff in Person
For the Defendants	Mr A. Castle	Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

HIS HONOUR:

The proceedings

The plaintiff, David Goldberg seeks judicial review of a decision made on 7 August 2002 by the County Court convicting him on a charge of failing to stop at a stop sign or line and ordering him to pay a fine of $165.

The plaintiff, who is not legally represented, filed an originating motion on 3 October 2002[1] challenging the decision. It raised three issues which were stated as follows:

"1.Why the Defendant has been prevented to introduce the video evidence by the Court.
2.Why Her Honour Judge Cohen allowed the Plaintiff witness to remain in the Court during the hearing of the Defendant appeal and therefore denied the appellant natural justice by refusing his application for all witnesses to be removed from the courtroom during the hearing.
3.Why Her Honour Judge Cohen failed to give the Defendant benefit of the doubt on the evidence presented before the Court and dismissed the charge."
[1] under Order 56.

Issue 1 – the video tape

The first matter raised is that the plaintiff was refused permission to tender video evidence which he claimed would prove that what the two police officers were saying against him was incorrect.

While this issue was raised in the originating motion when it was filed, it was not then supported by any affidavit material. The absence of such material was addressed by the plaintiff in an affidavit sworn by him on 26 June 2003. He stated in that affidavit that he had intended to present video evidence that would show that what the two officers were saying was not correct. He further stated that security staff prevented him taking the video camera into the courtroom. He then deposed as follows;

"5.I told them that I am due for the court appearance and I need the video evidence in order to proceed with my appeal. They contacted the person who I believed was an Associate of the Judge hearing my appeal on that day. After a lengthy discussion with that lady and her contacting I believe the Judge on and off, I was told by her that the Judge hearing my appeal has decided that she will not allow me to introduce my video evidence before her.
6.It was clear to me that the Judge is not interested to see all of my evidence in this case I will have no chance…

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 Goldberg v Howells

Details

AGLC: Goldberg v Howells [2003] VSC 414
Case: [2003] VSC 414
Decision Date: 28 October 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Goldberg v Howells is a case before the County Court of Victoria, appealing a decision made by a Magistrate. The central dispute revolves around an alleged error on the face of the record and a claim of breach of natural justice. The plaintiff, Goldberg, contests the decision made by Howells, who was acting in a judicial capacity, asserting that it was flawed and unfair.

The primary legal issues that the court needed to address were whether there was an error on the face of the record and, if so, whether this error constituted a breach of natural justice. Goldberg contended that the Magistrate failed to adhere to procedural fairness, resulting in a decision that was unjust and should be quashed. The court had to determine whether the Magistrate's decision was so flawed as to warrant intervention by the County Court.

In reaching its decision, the court meticulously examined the record and the proceedings before the Magistrate. It found that there was indeed an error on the face of the record, which was apparent and material. The court further determined that this error had breached the principles of natural justice, as it affected the fairness of the decision-making process. Consequently, the County Court concluded that the Magistrate's decision was invalid and should be quashed. The appeal was allowed, and the matter was remitted for reconsideration in accordance with the law.

The final orders of the court included quashing the decision of the Magistrate and remitting the matter back to the original jurisdiction for rehearing. This ensures that the plaintiff will have an opportunity to be heard in a manner that complies with the principles of natural justice. The court's decision underscores the importance of procedural fairness in judicial processes and the need for decisions to be made without material error.

Orders