Irons v Moore - [2019] TASSC 22

[2019] TASSC 22

COURT: SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA

CITATION: Irons v Moore [2019] TASSC 22

PARTIES:  IRONS, Mitchell Ashley
  v
  MOORE, Luke

FILE NO:  LCA 657/2018
DELIVERED ON:  22 May 2019
DELIVERED AT:  Launceston
HEARING DATE:  9 November 2018
JUDGMENT OF:  Brett J

CATCHWORDS:

Magistrates – Hearing – Evidence – Other matters – Matters relating to decision – Appeal against finding of guilt on one count of common assault which was also a breach of a family violence order – Circumstantial case – Complainant's evidence was that she did not recall the events – Surrounding evidence was sufficient to permit the magistrate to make the findings he did – Application of force in lawful self-defence was not available to the magistrate as a reasonable possibility or hypothesis consistent with innocence – Finding that the applicant was guilty of both offences was reasonably open on the evidence.

R v Baden-Clay [2016] HCA 35, 258 CLR 308; Weissensteiner v The Queen (1993) 178 CLR 217, applied.
Aust Dig Magistrates [1153].

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Applicant:  E Hughes
             Respondent:  L Ogden
Solicitors:
             Applicant:  Tasmanian Aboriginal Legal Service
             Respondent:  Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment Number: [2019] TASSC 22
Number of paragraphs: 27

Serial No 22/2019
File No LCA 657/2018

MITCHELL ASHLEY IRONS
v SENIOR SERGEANT LUKE MOORE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BRETT J

22 May 2019

The applicant was charged with assaulting his partner on 27 June 2017. The assault was also alleged to have constituted the breach of a family violence order. After hearing the complaint, Magistrate Brown found the applicant guilty of both charges, recorded convictions and imposed a fine.
The applicant now seeks a review of the decision to find him guilty. The sole ground of review is that on no reasonable view of the evidence could the magistrate have been satisfied of his guilt. It is well settled that such a ground can only succeed if I am satisfied that the decision to find guilt was not open to the magistrate 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 [2009] TASSC 38, 18 Tas R 454.
The same actus reus was alleged in respect of both offences, in particular that the applicant had grabbed and punched the complainant. The prosecution case was that this act had occurred during the course of an argument between the parties, while they were seated in their motor vehicle which was parked in a residential street. The only other occupant of the vehicle was the parties' 4-year-old child, who was seated in the back seat. The complainant gave evidence, but apart from conceding that she was in a relationship with the applicant and present in the vehicle on the day in question, she claimed no memory of anything else that happened that day. The prosecutor successfully applied to the magistrate pursuant to s…

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 Irons v Moore

Details

AGLC: Irons v Moore [2019] TASSC 22
Case: [2019] TASSC 22
Decision Date: 22 May 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Irons v Moore involved an appeal against a finding of guilt on one count of common assault, which was also a breach of a family violence order. The case was heard in a Magistrates Court, where the defendant, Moore, challenged the decision. The core of the dispute revolved around whether the evidence presented was sufficient to support the magistrate's findings. The complainant's testimony was pivotal, as she stated that she did not recall the events of the alleged assault. However, the surrounding evidence was deemed sufficient by the court to permit the magistrate to make the findings he did.

The legal issues at the heart of the case concerned the sufficiency and reliability of the evidence presented. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the magistrate's findings were supported by the evidence and whether the application of force in lawful self-defence could have been a reasonable possibility or hypothesis consistent with innocence. The court needed to determine if the magistrate's finding that the defendant was guilty of both offences was reasonably open on the evidence presented. The court held that the evidence, while circumstantial, was sufficient to uphold the findings of guilt.

The reasoning of the court was grounded in the evaluation of the evidence provided. The complainant's lack of recollection did not undermine the magistrate's ability to consider the surrounding evidence and draw conclusions. The court noted that the application of force in lawful self-defence was not available to the magistrate as a reasonable possibility or hypothesis consistent with innocence, given the evidence presented. Consequently, the court found that the magistrate's finding that the defendant was guilty of both offences was reasonably open on the evidence. The appeal was thus dismissed, affirming the original decision.

Orders