Legal Research
Cases
Goldberg v Laughlin

Goldberg v Laughlin

Case [2012] VSCA 106 14 May 2012

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL
(CIVIL DIVISION)

S APCI 2009 3784

DAVID GOLDBERG	Appellant
DAVID GOLDBERG	v
STEVEN MATTHEW LAUGHLIN	First Respondent
STEVEN MATTHEW LAUGHLIN	and
THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA	Second Respondent

---

JUDGES	MAXWELL P, MANDIE JA and CAVANOUGH AJA
WHERE HELD	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING	14 May 2012
DATE OF JUDGMENT	14 May 2012
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION	[2012] VSCA 106
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM	Goldberg v Laughlin & Anor [2009] VSC 231 (J Forrest J)

---

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – Certiorari – Decision of County Court Judge – Whether open on the evidence – Whether manifestly unreasonable – No error of law – Appeal dismissed – Supreme Court Rules 0.56.

CRIMINAL LAW – Security and intelligence – Appellant suspected ASIO involvement in traffic prosecution – Alleged ASIO harassment over long period – No evidence to support – Appellant’s activities raised no national security issue – No complaint made to Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security – Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 (Cth) s 17, Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Act 1986 (Cth).

---

Appearances:	Counsel	Solicitors
The Appellant appeared in person
For the Respondents	Mr Gyorffy SC	Craig Hyland, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

MAXWELL P:

I will invite Cavanough AJA to deliver the first judgment.

CAVANOUGH AJA:

This is an appeal from a judgment of Forrest J given on 11 June 2009.[1] The following recitation of the facts and circumstances of the matter draws heavily on his Honour’s judgment.
[1]Goldberg v Laughlin & Anor [2009] VSC 231.

The appellant, Mr David Goldberg, was charged in the Magistrates’ Court with driving his motor vehicle at a speed in excess of the applicable speed limit. He was convicted and appealed to the County Court. His appeal was heard on 17 October 2006 and dismissed. He sought from the Trial Division of this Court an order in the nature of certiorari pursuant to Order 56 of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2005 to quash the decision of the County Court.

In the originating motion and before Justice Forrest, Mr Goldberg argued that there was no evidence before the County Court judge that could underpin the finding against him, and that therefore the decision was such that no reasonable court could have reached it. He also contended that he was denied natural justice in the hearing of the appeal to the County Court.

Justice Forrest determined that Mr Goldberg was given a fair hearing in the County Court by Judge Wilmoth and that her Honour’s decision was patently open to her on the evidence adduced. Justice Forrest saw no error which could afford Mr Goldberg the relief he sought. Indeed Forrest J regarded the proceeding as misconceived.

Factual background

On 5 May 2005 the first respondent, Senior Constable Laughlin, was stationed

in Centre Road, Bentleigh East. He was operating a hand held speed measuring device. According to the evidence he later gave, he detected Mr Goldberg’s vehicle travelling at 63 kilometres per hour in a 40 kilometre per hour zone (a school…

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 Laughlin

Details

AGLC: Goldberg v Laughlin [2012] VSCA 106
Case: [2012] VSCA 106
Decision Date: 14 May 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant in Goldberg v Laughlin sought to challenge a decision of a County Court Judge through an application for certiorari. The appellant, who had been prosecuted for traffic offences, alleged that the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) was involved in his prosecution and had harassed him over an extended period. The appellant sought to overturn the decision on the grounds that it was not supported by the evidence and was manifestly unreasonable. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The court was required to determine whether the County Court Judge's decision was open on the evidence and whether it was manifestly unreasonable. The court also needed to consider whether there was an error of law in the decision-making process.

The Supreme Court found that the appellant's allegations of ASIO involvement and harassment were not supported by any evidence. The court held that the appellant's activities did not raise any national security issues and that no complaint had been made to the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security. The court concluded that the decision of the County Court Judge was open on the evidence and was not manifestly unreasonable. The appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the County Court was upheld.

The court found that the appellant had not demonstrated that the County Court Judge had made an error of law in reaching their decision. The court held that the decision was within the range of reasonable outcomes that could be reached on the evidence before the County Court. The court also noted that the appellant had not provided any evidence to support his allegations of ASIO involvement and harassment.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the decision of the County Court. The court found that the decision was open on the evidence and was not manifestly unreasonable. The court held that there was no error of law in the decision-making process and that the appeal should be dismissed. The appellant was ordered to pay the costs of the appeal.

Orders