Hutchison v Horan - [2021] TASSC 36

[2021] TASSC 36

COURT: SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA

CITATION: Hutchison v Horan [2021] TASSC 36

PARTIES:  HUTCHISON, Graeme John
  v
  HORAN, Melinda

FILE NO:  572/2021
DELIVERED ON:  26 August 2021
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart (Heard in Burnie)
HEARING DATE:  20 August 2021
JUDGMENT OF:  Marshall AJ

CATCHWORDS:

Magistrates – Appeal – Tasmania – Motion to review – Whether reasonable person would have arrived at the same conclusion – Grounds not made out.

Traffic Act 1925 (Tas) s 32(2A).
Shi v Wilkie [2021] TASFC 1, applied.
Aust Dig Magistrates [1349].

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
           Applicant:  S Wright
           Respondent:  E Bill
Solicitors:
           Applicant:  Stephen G Wright
           Respondent:  Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment Number: [2021] TASSC 36
Number of paragraphs: 15

Serial No 36/2021
File No 572/2021

GRAEME JOHN HUTCHISON v SERGEANT MELINDA HORAN

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT MARSHALL AJ

26 August 2021

The applicant, Mr Hutchison, has applied to review the order of Magistrate L Topfer made in a proceeding where Mr Hutchison was found guilty of an offence against s 32(2A) of the Traffic Act 1925. That sections provides:
"(2A) A person must not cause the death of another person by driving a motor vehicle on a public street negligently."
In the matter before the magistrate the particulars of negligence were failures to:
·    keep a proper lookout;
·    give way to pedestrians;
·    avoid a collision; and
·    drive with reasonable caution and care for other road users including pedestrians.
At about 12.30pm on Saturday, 4 January 2020, Mr Hutchison was driving a bus in Cattley Street, Burnie and was making a left turn into Wilson Street. At the same time an elderly woman, who was visiting Burnie and had arrived earlier that day on a cruise ship, was crossing Wilson Street when favoured by a green pedestrian light. Mr Hutchison's bus collided with the elderly woman and she died as a result of her injuries.
In the penultimate paragraph of her decision, the magistrate said:
"In this case the incident took place at a pedestrian crossing at the traffic lights in the Burnie CBD on a Saturday at about midday. The deceased crossed the road on a green pedestrian light. The evidence indicated she was walking at a consistent pace. She did not suddenly run out in front of the traffic. In fact CCTV indicates she had walked across Cattley St before commencing to cross Wilson St. The defendant did not see her at all. I find that he failed to keep a proper lookout, focusing on the other pedestrian who was crossing the road and that even if there was a blind spot, and I am not satisfied that any blind spots were a factor in the fatality, he did not take sufficient care when turning left into Wilson Street given the blind spot in the bus of which he stated he was aware."
The question for the Court on the hearing of an order to review is whether on the evidence the…

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 Hutchison v Horan

Details

AGLC: Hutchison v Horan [2021] TASSC 36
Case: [2021] TASSC 36
Decision Date: 26 August 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Hutchison v Horan involved an appeal against a decision made by a magistrate in the Court of Criminal Appeal in Tasmania. The appellant, Mr. Hutchison, sought a review of the magistrate's decision regarding a matter that was not specified in the text provided. The primary focus of the appeal was on the magistrate's decision-making process and whether the decision was reasonable and justifiable.

The central legal issue in this case revolved around the standard of review applicable to the magistrate's decision. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the magistrate's decision was one that a reasonable person, properly informed and directed, would have arrived at. The court also had to assess whether the grounds for review, as outlined by the appellant, were substantiated.

In examining the magistrate's decision, the court found that the decision was indeed one that a reasonable person would have reached, given the circumstances and the information available to the magistrate at the time. The court also concluded that the grounds for review were not sufficiently made out by the appellant, and thus, the appeal was dismissed. The court emphasized the importance of the principle that a reasonable person standard was met in this instance and that the appeal did not demonstrate sufficient grounds to warrant a review of the magistrate's decision.

The court's decision was final and no further appeal was permitted, affirming the magistrate's original decision. The appellant was left to abide by the outcome determined by the magistrate, with no further review or appeal available to him.

Orders