Jones v Bonde (No 2) - [2022] TASSC 35

[2022] TASSC 35

COURT: SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA

CITATION: Jones v Bonde (No 2) [2022] TASSC 35

PARTIES:  JONES, Brereton James
  v
  BONDE, Michael

FILE NO:  3142/2021
DELIVERED ON:  27 May 2022
DELIVERED AT:  Launceston
HEARING DATE:  19 May 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 – Explanation 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]

Magistrates – Appeal and review – Tasmania – Motion to review – When remedy available – Inadequacy of reasons for decision – Aggravated assault – Charge found proved – Finding of guilt reasonably open to magistrate.
Phillips v Arnold [2009] TASSC 43, 19 Tas R 21, 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 35
Number of paragraphs: 21

Serial No 35/2022
File No 3142/2021

BRERETON JAMES JONES v MICHAEL BONDE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT PEARCE J

27 May 2022

This motion challenges a decision of a magistrate, Ms S Cure, to find the applicant, Brereton Jones, guilty of aggravated assault. One ground of the motion asserted that the magistrate erred by failing to provide adequate reasons. For reasons published on 24 March 2022 I remitted the complaint to the magistrate with a direction under the Justices Act 1959, s 110(2A) that her Honour furnish the Court with further and better reasons: Jones v Bonde [2022] TASSC 19.
The magistrate's further reasons dated 3 May 2022 were received by the Court on 13 May 2022. The applicant submits that they are still inadequate. In the alternative, the applicant also presses the remaining ground of the motion that it was not open for the magistrate to have found the charge against him proved beyond reasonable doubt.
The issues and evidence in the case are sufficiently explained in my earlier reasons. These reasons should be read in conjunction with those. For the following reasons neither ground of the motion is made out.

The further reasons

The nature and extent of the duty of a judicial officer to give reasons were stated in my earlier decision. The reasons must expose the pathway of reasoning which led to the result.
The particulars of the charge of aggravated assault of which the applicant was found guilty were that he assaulted the complainant, Emily Pearce, by "pointing a firearm at her and saying where are my fucking keys". The prosecution case depended on acceptance of the truth of the essential parts of Ms Pearce's evidence and rejection of the applicant's denial. Application of the onus and standard of proof meant, as was…

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 (No 2)

Details

AGLC: Jones v Bonde (No 2) [2022] TASSC 35
Case: [2022] TASSC 35
Decision Date: 27 May 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Jones v Bonde (No 2), the appellant, Jones, sought a review of a decision made by the Magistrates Court of Tasmania. The dispute centred around the adequacy of reasons provided by the court for its decision to find Jones guilty of aggravated assault. Jones argued that the court's reasons were insufficient and did not adequately explain why the evidence of the complainant was accepted over Jones' own testimony.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether a remedy was available under the Magistrates Court Act 1993 (Tas) to address the perceived inadequacy of the reasons provided by the court. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the lack of detailed reasoning constituted a sufficient ground for a review. The court had to weigh the principles of procedural fairness and the adequacy of judicial reasoning against the finality of judicial decisions.

The court found that the principles of procedural fairness required courts to provide reasons for their decisions that are adequate to enable meaningful review. However, the court also acknowledged the need to strike a balance between ensuring judicial accountability and maintaining the finality of judicial decisions. Ultimately, the court concluded that the reasons provided, although not detailed, were sufficient to enable meaningful review. The court found that the reasons were adequate to demonstrate that the court had considered the evidence and reached a decision based on a rational and reasoned process. The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction was upheld.

No further orders were made.

Orders