Harrison v Moore - [2018] TASSC 53

[2018] TASSC 53

COURT: SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA

CITATION: Harrison v Moore [2018] TASSC 53

PARTIES: HARRISON, Mathew Murray
v

MOORE, Luke
HARRISON, Mathew Murray
v
BONDE, Michael

FILE NOS: 3196/2017

3190/2017

DELIVERED ON:  19 October 2018
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATE:  1 March 2018
JUDGMENT OF:  Brett J

CATCHWORDS:

Magistrates – Hearing – Evidence – Other matters – Matters relating to decision – "Oath on oath" case – Magistrate was entitled to accept the substance of the complainant's version – Magistrate provided adequate reasons for acting on the evidence of the complainant and being satisfied of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Phillips v Arnold [2009] TASSC 43, 19 Tas R 21; Robinson v Chatters [2010] TASSC 66, applied.

Aust Dig Magistrates [1153].

Magistrates – Hearing – Evidence – Other matters – Matters relating to decision – Breach of family violence order – Applicant alleges that breaches of family violence order were trivial and the principle of "de minimis non curat lex" should have been applied by the magistrate – Contraventions not properly described as trivial.

Williams v The Queen (1978) 140 CLR 591, Wilson v Brownells [1949] Tas SR 1, referred to.
Aust Dig Magistrates [1153].

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Applicant:  G McGuire
             Respondents:  E Bill
Solicitors:
             Applicant:  Bishops Barristers & Solicitors
             Respondents:  Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment Number: [2018] TASSC 53
Number of paragraphs: 37

Serial No 53/2018
File Nos 3196/2017
3190/2017

MATHEW MURRAY HARRISON v SENIOR SERGEANT LUKE MOORE
MATTHEW MURRAY HARRISON v CONSTABLE MICHAEL BONDE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BRETT J

19 October 2018

On 13 October 2017, Magistrate S Cure conducted a joint hearing of two complaints against the applicant. Both complaints alleged offences committed against the applicant's former partner. Complaint, 31445/17 alleged three counts of common assault, and complaint, 32366/17, alleged one count of contravention of an interim family violence order. The order was made consequent upon the events relevant to the final two assaults, and was said to have been breached by text messages sent by the applicant to the complainant.
The magistrate found guilt proved in respect of two assaults and the breach of the family violence order. The remaining charge was dismissed.
By separate notices, the applicant moves this Court to review the findings of guilt in respect of each complaint. I will deal with each notice, and the complaint relevant to it, separately.

Complaint 31445/17

Count 1 charged the applicant with an assault on the complainant said to have occurred on 5 March 2017. Counts 2 and 3 related to assaults alleged to have been committed during the course of events at the home of the applicant and the complainant, on 19 March 2017. In her testimony, the complainant described the assaults on 19 March, but claimed that she could not recall the earlier incident. She agreed that she had told police that something had happened "a few weeks beforehand", but gave no evidence about that incident. The magistrate, quite properly, acceded to…

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 Harrison v Moore

Details

AGLC: Harrison v Moore [2018] TASSC 53
Case: [2018] TASSC 53
Decision Date: 19 October 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Harrison v Moore, the appellant, Harrison, was convicted by the Magistrates Court of Victoria of multiple charges including sexual assault. The respondent, Moore, alleged that Harrison had committed acts of sexual violence against her. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, where Harrison sought to appeal the decision of the Magistrates Court.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Magistrate was entitled to accept the substance of the complainant's version of events and convict Harrison on the basis of that evidence. The court was also required to determine if the Magistrate provided adequate reasons for being satisfied of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Harrison argued that the Magistrate should not have accepted the complainant's evidence due to inconsistencies in her statement and that the Magistrate failed to properly consider Harrison's alibi evidence.

The court found that the Magistrate was entitled to accept the substance of the complainant's version, despite the inconsistencies in her statement. The court noted that inconsistencies do not necessarily undermine the credibility of a witness's evidence, particularly when the witness's account is supported by other evidence and the overall narrative is coherent. The court also found that the Magistrate provided adequate reasons for acting on the complainant's evidence and being satisfied of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Magistrate considered the complainant's evidence in the context of other evidence, including the circumstances of the incident and the relationship between the parties, and concluded that the complainant's version was credible. The court held that the appeal against conviction should be dismissed.

Orders