Legal Research
Cases
JL v Clark

JL v Clark

Case [2025] TASSC 58 6 November 2025

Type to search within this case.

[2025] TASSC 58

COURT:	SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA
CITATION:	JL v Clark [2025] TASSC 58
PARTIES:	JL
v
CLARK, Natalie
FILE NO:	2739/2024
DELIVERED ON:	6 November 2025
DELIVERED AT:	Launceston
HEARING DATE:	29 October 2025
JUDGMENT OF:	Pearce J
CATCHWORDS:

Traffic Law – Offences – Particular offences – Reckless driving – Other matters – Tasmania – Sentence and

penalty.

Aust Dig Traffic Law [1159]

Traffic Act 1925, s 32(1)

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:

Applicant: M Larcombe
Respondent: C Melrose

Solicitors:

Applicant: Tamar Legal
Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment Number:	[2025] TASSC 58
Number of paragraphs:	35

Serial No 58/2025 File No 2739/2024

JL v NATALIE CLARK

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

PEARCE J
6 November 2025

1             This is an appeal against a sentence imposed by a magistrate, Mr K Stanton. The applicant pleaded guilty to two counts of reckless driving contrary to the Traffic Act 1925, s 32(1). He was convicted on both counts, sentenced to a period of detention of two months, wholly suspended for 12 months, and disqualified from driving for two years. The respondent is a police officer who made the relevant complaint.
2             There are two grounds of review. The first is that the sentence was manifestly excessive. The second is that the magistrate erred by imposing a suspended detention order without first ordering and considering a pre-sentence report directed to that question.
3   Neither ground is made out. The motion will be dismissed.

The jurisdictional issue

4 The applicant's written and oral submissions in support of both grounds of the appeal are founded on the proposition that the learned magistrate failed to correctly apply the provisions of the Youth Justice Act 1997. When the offences were committed the applicant was aged 17 and was thus a youth as defined by the Youth Justice Act, s 3. That Act established a division of the Magistrates Court to be known as the Magistrates Court (Youth Justice Division) which is constituted by a magistrate: ss 159 and 160. The Youth Justice Division has jurisdiction to hear and determine a charge against a youth for an offence: s 161(1)(a).
5 However, certain offences, called prescribed offences, are, depending on the age of the offender, excluded from the jurisdiction of the Youth Justice Division: see the various definitions in the Act, s 3. In respect of a youth who was 17 years old, an offence under the Traffic Act 1925 was a prescribed offence. The charges against the applicant were initially listed in the Youth Justice Division but his Honour, before sentencing, correctly recognised that that court did not have jurisdiction. His Honour removed the proceedings to the Court of Petty Sessions and continued to hear and determine the proceedings as a magistrate sitting in that court: Youth Justice Act, s 164(1). As a result, the magistrate, when imposing sentence, was sitting in the Court of Petty Sessions, not in the Youth Justice Division. Nevertheless, he was empowered by the Youth…

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 JL v Clark

Details

AGLC: JL v Clark [2025] TASSC 58
Case: [2025] TASSC 58
Decision Date: 6 November 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of JL v Clark involved an individual, JL, who was convicted of reckless driving in the Magistrates Court of Tasmania. The dispute centred on the appropriateness of the sentence imposed by the court for the offence of reckless driving. JL was found guilty and sentenced to a fine and a suspension of his driver's licence. The appeal focused on the severity and proportionality of the sentence, particularly the length of the licence suspension.

The legal issues before the court included whether the sentence was within the court's discretion, whether it was proportionate to the offence, and whether the court had adequately considered all relevant factors in determining the sentence. The court needed to determine if the penalty imposed was appropriate given the circumstances of the case, including the nature of the offence and the offender's history. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the penalty was consistent with sentences imposed for similar offences in other jurisdictions.

The court reviewed the sentencing principles applicable to the offence of reckless driving, emphasising the importance of deterrence, denunciation, and proportionality. It considered the offender's previous history, the circumstances of the offence, and the impact of the proposed sentence on the offender. The court found that the sentence imposed was within the appropriate range and was proportionate to the offence. It concluded that the Magistrates Court had correctly exercised its discretion and had adequately considered all relevant factors in determining the sentence. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.

Orders