Harriss v Williams-Coates - [2017] TASSC 62

[2017] TASSC 62

COURT: SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA

CITATION: Harriss v Williams-Coates [2017] TASSC 62

PARTIES:  HARRISS, Debra
  v
  WILLIAMS-COATES, Alex

FILE NO:  2205/2017
DELIVERED ON:  31 October 2017
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATE:  19 October 2017
JUDGMENT OF:  Blow CJ

CATCHWORDS:

Magistrates – Appeal and review – Tasmania – Motion to review – Other matters – Review of acquittal – Whether magistrate as reasonable person could have found defendant not guilty on evidence before him.
Phillips v Arnold [2009] TASSC 43, 19 Tas R 21; Caccavo v Collins [2014] TASFC 7, 23 Tas R 384, followed.

Aust Dig Magistrates [1349]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Applicant:  S Nicholson
             Respondent:  C Rainbird
Solicitors:
             Applicant:  Director of Public Prosecutions
             Respondent:  C Rainbird

Judgment Number: [2017] TASSC 62
Number of paragraphs: 16

Serial No 62/2017
File No 22/05

DEBRA HARRISS v ALEX WILLIAMS COATES

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BLOW CJ

31 October 2017

This is a motion for the review of an order of a magistrate, Mr R Marron, dismissing a complaint in an assault case. The respondent, Alex Williams-Coates, was charged with assaulting a police officer, Constable Laura Winfield-Peterson, in the execution of her duty by "striking her in the hip with a pair of boots", contrary to s 34B(1)(a)(i) of the Police Offences Act 1935. It was common ground that the constable was struck by at least one of the respondent's boots. The prosecution case was that the respondent had deliberately hit the constable with them. The respondent contended that she was throwing them to a friend, and that the constable was hit unintentionally and accidentally. The incident in question occurred at about 3.30am on Sunday, 3 July 2016 in Murray Street, Hobart.
Four witnesses gave evidence at the hearing – Senior Constable Scott Hardman, Constable Winfield-Peterson, the respondent, and a defence witness named Alec Purdon. He was the person to whom the respondent claimed to have tried to throw her boots.
Senior Constable Hardman gave evidence to the following effect. He and Constable Winfield-Peterson were on mobile patrol duties together. They were called to the corner of Liverpool and Murray Streets, where there was a report of persons fighting. On their arrival they saw a group of people on the corner. A man ran from that group along Murray Street towards Collins Street. They drove towards Collins Street. The man turned and ran back towards Liverpool Street. Senior Constable Hardman was driving. He stopped the car. Both officers got out and chased the man. Senior Constable Hardman was behind Constable Winfield-Peterson. As he neared the entrance to Centrepoint he saw a movement. He saw the respondent "mid-swing" with a black object in her right hand, swinging it towards Constable Winfield-Peterson. It struck her to the right side. Constable Winfield-Peterson stopped, but he ran on. As he passed her, he saw on the ground the object that had made contact with her. It was "a small black lady's boot". He heard Constable Winfield-Peterson say…

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 Harriss v Williams-Coates

Details

AGLC: Harriss v Williams-Coates [2017] TASSC 62
Case: [2017] TASSC 62
Decision Date: 31 October 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Harriss v Williams-Coates was heard in the Magistrates Court of Tasmania. The defendant, Williams-Coates, was acquitted of charges related to a road traffic incident. Harriss, the aggrieved party, sought a review of the magistrate's decision, arguing that the acquittal was unreasonable given the evidence presented. The legal issues at the core of this appeal revolved around the standard of review applicable to a magistrate's decision and whether the magistrate, as a reasonable person, could have acquitted the defendant based on the evidence presented.

The court considered the principles of appellate review, focusing on whether the magistrate's decision to acquit the defendant was open to the magistrate as a reasonable person. It was established that the test is not whether the appellate court would have acquitted the defendant but whether the magistrate, as a reasonable person, could have done so. The court scrutinised the evidence and the reasoning process of the magistrate, ensuring that the decision was based on a rational assessment of the facts.

In reaching its decision, the court concluded that the magistrate, as a reasonable person, could indeed have acquitted the defendant based on the evidence before them. The court found that the evidence supported the magistrate's conclusion and that the decision to acquit was not unreasonable. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the magistrate's decision.

The court made no further orders, thereby upholding the original acquittal.

Orders