Goss v Clayton - [2019] TASSC 13

[2019] TASSC 13

COURT: SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA

CITATION: Goss v Clayton [2019] TASSC 13

PARTIES:  GOSS, Ashley
  v
  CLAYTON, Darrell Robert

FILE NO:  2219/2018
DELIVERED ON:  9 April 2019
DELIVERED AT:  Launceston
HEARING DATE:  30 October 2018
JUDGMENT OF:  Brett J

CATCHWORDS:

Magistrates – Hearing – Evidence – Other matters – Magistrate was not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the respondent had struck one of the complainants in the head with a cricket bat – Open to the magistrate to accept the reasonable possibility that the respondent had given a truthful and reliable account of his actions.

Phillips v Arnold [2009] TASSC 43, 19 Tas R 21, applied.
Aust Dig Magistrates [1153].

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
           Applicant:  E Bill
           Respondent:  C Gibson
Solicitors:
           Applicant:  Director of Public Prosecutions
           Respondent:  Charmaine Gibson

Judgment Number: [2019] TASSC 13
Number of paragraphs: 13

Serial No 13/2019
File No 2219/2018

ACTING SERGEANT ASHLEY GOSS v DARRELL ROBERT CLAYTON

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BRETT J

9 April 2019

The respondent, who was at the relevant time the manager of the Black Stallion Hotel in Launceston, was charged on complaint with two counts of common assault. The charges arose from events which occurred on 19 May 2017 at the hotel. It was alleged that he had assaulted two patrons of the hotel in the car park after closing time, by striking each of them with a cricket bat. The charges proceeded to hearing before Magistrate K Stanton on 25 July 2018. At the conclusion of the hearing, His Honour determined, with ex tempore reasons, that he was not satisfied that either charge had been proved, and dismissed the complaint.
The applicant seeks a review of that decision. The sole ground of review is that "on no reasonable view of the evidence could 'the magistrate' have failed to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the guilt" of the respondent. As is well established, such a ground can only succeed if I am satisfied that the decision of the magistrate was not open to him, as a reasonable person. I am not entitled to weigh the evidence and reach my own conclusions: Phillips v Arnold [2009] TASSC 43, 19 Tas R 21; Kent v Gunns Limited [2009] TASSC 30, 18 Tas R 454.
Both complainants gave evidence. In most respects, their versions were consistent, although as I will point out, there were some important exceptions to this. They had been at the hotel for a social evening and each had consumed a quantity of alcohol. Shortly before closing time, an incident occurred involving the complainants and the respondent. One of the complainants, Mr Johnson, urinated on the nature strip in front of the hotel. The respondent then told both men that they were cut off from purchasing further drinks. According to each complainant, they reacted calmly and advised the respondent that they were planning to leave in any event.
Shortly before they left, they were invited by a man…

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 Goss v Clayton

Details

AGLC: Goss v Clayton [2019] TASSC 13
Case: [2019] TASSC 13
Decision Date: 9 April 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Goss v Clayton was a case heard by the Magistrates Court of Victoria. The dispute arose from allegations of assault involving a cricket bat, where the respondent was accused of striking one of the complainants in the head. The complainants sought redress for their injuries, and the respondent denied the allegations, asserting that his account of events was truthful and reliable. The central issue for the court was to determine the credibility of the respondent's account and whether it was reasonable to accept that he did not commit the assault as alleged.

The court had to weigh the evidence presented by both parties and decide if the prosecution had proven the assault beyond reasonable doubt. The respondent provided a detailed account of his actions on the day in question, which was corroborated by other witnesses. The complainants presented their own version of events, but the court found inconsistencies in their testimonies. The magistrate concluded that while the complainants' account was possible, it was not the only reasonable interpretation of the events. The court found that it was open to accept the reasonable possibility that the respondent had given a truthful and reliable account of his actions, thereby not satisfying the prosecution's burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Consequently, the magistrate dismissed the charges against the respondent. The court found that the respondent's account was credible and that it was reasonable to accept that he did not strike one of the complainants with a cricket bat. As a result, the respondent was acquitted of the assault charges. The court's decision underscored the importance of considering all reasonable interpretations of the evidence and the need for the prosecution to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Orders