Jones v Bonde - [2022] TASSC 19

[2022] TASSC 19

COURT: SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA

CITATION: Jones v Bonde [2022] TASSC 19

PARTIES:  JONES, Brereton James
  v
  BONDE, Michael

FILE NO:  3142/2021
DELIVERED ON:  24 March 2022
DELIVERED AT:  Launceston
HEARING DATE:  22 March 2022
JUDGMENT OF:  Pearce J

CATCHWORDS:

Magistrates – Appeal and review – Tasmania – Motion to review – When remedy available – Inadequacy of reasons for decision – Aggravated assault – Charge found proved – Failure to sufficiently explain why evidence of complainant accepted in preference to evidence of accused.

Phillips v Arnold [2009] TASSC 43, 19 Tas R 21; Robinson v Chatters [2010] TASSC 66; Jotheeswaran v Barnes [2019] TASSC 42, applied.
Aust Dig Magistrates [1345]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Applicant:  L Flanagan
             Respondent:  E Bill
Solicitors:
             Applicant:  Tasmanian Legal Aid
             Respondent:  Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment Number: [2022] TASSC 19
Number of paragraphs: 25

Serial No 19/2022
File No 3142/2021

BRERETON JAMES JONES v MICHAEL BONDE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT PEARCE J

24 March 2022

The applicant, Brereton Jones, was found guilty by a magistrate, Ms S Cure, of aggravated assault. This motion challenges the conviction on two grounds. One ground asserts that the magistrate erred by failing to give adequate reasons. The other ground alleges that no magistrate acting reasonably could have been satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of Mr Jones's guilt. A third ground challenging the sentence is not pursued.
The respondent concedes that the learned magistrate's reasons for finding the charge proved were not adequate and that her Honour thereby erred in law. For the following reasons the concession is properly made. The agreed position of the parties is that before considering the other ground, or making an order resolving the motion to review under the Justice Act 1959, s 110(2), the matter should be remitted to the magistrate with a direction under s 110(2A) that her Honour furnish the Court with further and better reasons.

The charge and the decision

The Firearms Act 1996, s 115, provides that a person is guilty of the crime of aggravated assault under the Criminal Code, s 183, if, during the course of an assault, the person uses, threatens to use or was carrying a firearm. As originally particularised, the charge against Mr Jones alleged that, on 20 July 2021, he assaulted Emily Pearce "by pointing a firearm at her and possessing the firearm while striking her". The hearing before the learned magistrate commenced on 17 November 2021. It continued on 26 November 2021. Following completion of the evidence the learned magistrate retired for a short time and then proceeded to decision. She delivered oral reasons for finding Mr Jones guilty. In the course of her reasons a matter arose as to the form of the complaint. Her Honour expressed concern about what she perceived as the "duplicitous" nature of the charge, in that it referred to both the act of pointing the firearm and a separate act of striking. Following an exchange…

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 Jones v Bonde

Details

AGLC: Jones v Bonde [2022] TASSC 19
Case: [2022] TASSC 19
Decision Date: 24 March 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Jones v Bonde, the appellant sought to appeal against a decision of the Magistrates Court of Tasmania, which found the respondent guilty of aggravated assault. The primary issue before the court was whether the remedy of a review was available in light of the inadequacy of the reasons provided by the magistrate for the decision. A secondary issue was the sufficiency of the explanation provided by the magistrate as to why the evidence of the complainant was accepted over that of the accused.

The court considered that a review was appropriate when the decision-making process was flawed, and in this instance, the inadequacy of the reasons provided by the magistrate constituted such a flaw. The court found that the magistrate's failure to sufficiently explain why the evidence of the complainant was accepted in preference to that of the accused rendered the decision insufficiently reasoned. This was particularly significant given the serious nature of the charge and the potential impact on the accused's liberty. The court held that the absence of adequate reasons undermined the fairness and transparency of the decision-making process.

The court ordered a review of the decision, with directions for the magistrate to provide more detailed reasons for their findings. The court emphasised the importance of providing clear and comprehensive reasons in cases involving serious charges to ensure the integrity of the judicial process. The outcome of the review would determine whether the conviction would stand or if a new hearing would be required.

Orders