Gray v Moore - [2018] TASSC 50

[2018] TASSC 50

COURT: SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA

CITATION: Gray v Moore [2018] TASSC 50

PARTIES:  GRAY, Andrew
  v
  MOORE, Luke

FILE NO:  LCA 523/2017
DELIVERED ON:  10 October 2018
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATE:  26 February 2018
JUDGMENT OF:  Brett J

CATCHWORDS:

Magistrates – Hearing – Evidence – Other matters – Matters relating to decision – Appeal against finding of guilt on one count of assault and one count of trespass – Whether finding of guilt was reasonably open to magistrate – Conclusions drawn by magistrate clearly open.

Phillips v Arnold [2009] TASSC 43, 19 Tas R 21; Cuthbert v Coates [2018] TASSC 7, cited.
Aust Dig Magistrates [1153].

REPRESENTATION:

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

Judgment Number: [2018] TASSC 50
Number of paragraphs: 28

Serial No 50/2018
File No LCA 523/2017

ANDREW GRAY v SENIOR SERGEANT LUKE MOORE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BRETT J

10 October 2018

The applicant was charged on complaint with two counts of assault and one count of trespass arising from events which took place on 16 October 2015 at the home of his brother. The allegation was that he had punched his brother multiple times on two separate occasions during the course of those events, and had refused to leave the property when his brother demanded that he do so, thereby withdrawing any express or implied consent for him to be on the property. All three charges proceeded to hearing before Magistrate D Fairley. On 10 February 2017, the learned magistrate found count 1 (the first assault) and count 3 (the trespass) proved. However, his Honour was not satisfied that count 2 had been proved, and that charge was dismissed. The magistrate published written reasons and imposed a fine by way of sentence.
The applicant moves this Court to review the finding of guilt in respect of counts 1 and 3. The primary ground of review is that no reasonable magistrate could have been satisfied of guilt on either count, having regard to the evidence. During the course of preliminary submissions with respect to the motion, at a time when the applicant was not legally represented, the applicant also asserted that his counsel at the hearing had not adduced relevant and available evidence. This raised the question as to whether the applicant was in fact seeking a hearing de novo pursuant to s 111 of the Justices Act 1959. However, when the motion came before me for hearing, the applicant's counsel, Mr Doyle, abandoned any argument based on the failure to call evidence at the hearing, and any suggestion that there should be a hearing de novo. Accordingly, the review proceeds only on the ground that the finding of guilt was not reasonably open to the magistrate.

The evidence

According to the complainant's testimony, the relevant events occurred after the applicant had arrived at the complainant's house. He had with him…

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 Gray v Moore

Details

AGLC: Gray v Moore [2018] TASSC 50
Case: [2018] TASSC 50
Decision Date: 10 October 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Gray v Moore, the appellant, Gray, sought to appeal a decision of the Magistrates Court of Victoria, wherein the Magistrate found him guilty of one count of assault and one count of trespass. The dispute arose from an incident where Gray was accused of assaulting a person and subsequently trespassing on their property. The appeal before the court was focused on whether the Magistrate's findings of guilt were reasonably open and if the conclusions drawn by the Magistrate were clearly open based on the evidence presented.

The primary legal issues that the court had to address were whether the Magistrate's conclusions were open on the evidence and if the findings of guilt were reasonably open. The appellant argued that the Magistrate's decision lacked sufficient evidence to support the findings of guilt. The court was required to determine if the evidence provided was adequate to support the Magistrate's conclusions and whether those conclusions were clearly open based on the evidence.

The court, in reviewing the Magistrate's decision, found that the conclusions drawn by the Magistrate were clearly open on the evidence presented. The court noted that the evidence provided was sufficient to support the findings of guilt and that the conclusions were reasonable and within the bounds of what a reasonably minded Magistrate could have decided. The court held that the Magistrate's findings of guilt were reasonably open and that the appeal was, therefore, without merit. The appeal was dismissed, and the original findings of the Magistrate were upheld.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal be dismissed and that the original findings of the Magistrates Court of Victoria be upheld. The appellant's arguments were found to be without merit, and the court confirmed the Magistrate's decision as being based on a sound assessment of the evidence presented.

Orders