Jordan v Rutland - [2020] TASSC 61

[2020] TASSC 61

COURT:	SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA
CITATION:	Jordan v Rutland [2020] TASSC 61
PARTIES:	JORDAN, Brendan John
v
RUTLAND, Anthony (Sergeant)
FILE NO:	LCA 836/2020
DELIVERED ON:	18 December 2020
DELIVERED AT:	Launceston
HEARING DATE:	24 July 2020
JUDGMENT OF:	Brett J
CATCHWORDS:

Magistrates – Hearing – Evidence – Other matters – Matters relating to decision – Appeal against finding of guilt on one count of assault and one count of trespass – Whether finding of guilt was reasonably open to magistrate – Conclusions drawn by magistrate clearly open.

Phillips v Arnold [2009] TASSC 43, 19 Tas R 21; Cuthbert v Coates [2018] TASSC 7, cited.
Aust Dig Magistrates [1153].

Criminal Law – Particular offences – Assault – Generally – Definition of assault – Elements of the offence – Finding that the applicant was subjectively reckless in applying force to the complainant sufficient to amount to an assault.

Tasmania v Oates [2017] TASSC 39, applied.

Aust Dig Criminal Law [2208]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:

Applicant: M Doyle
Respondent: S Nicholson

Solicitors:

Applicant: Clarke & Gee
Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment Number:	[2020] TASSC 61
Number of paragraphs:	16

Serial No 61/2020

File No LCA 836/2020

BRANDAN JOHN JORDAN v SERGEANT ANTHONY RUTLAND

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

BRETT J
18 December 2020

1 The applicant was charged with two offences arising out of events which occurred at Falmouth on 24 September 2018. It was alleged that the applicant had assaulted the complainant after an argument between them, by driving his motor vehicle at her and striking her with it. It was also alleged that he had then driven off, thereby failing to stop and give assistance, in breach of s 33(2) of the Traffic Act 1925.
2 After a hearing conducted on 3 and 17 March 2020, Magistrate S Cure found the applicant guilty of both charges. Although he had pleaded not guilty to both, his counsel had, in submissions, conceded his guilt with respect to the failing to stop charge. However, he maintained his dispute as to guilt in respect of the alleged assault. The applicant now seeks to review the magistrate's finding of guilt on that charge.
3 The sole ground of review is that that finding was not reasonably open to the magistrate on the evidence. The principles applicable on a review based on this ground were summarised by me in Cuthbert v Coates [2018] TASSC 7 as follows at [4] and [5]:
The test applicable to a review of a magistrate's findings of fact upon the evidence, pursuant to s 107 of the Justices Act 1959, is not in dispute. That test was succinctly stated by Crawford CJ (with whom Blow and Porter JJ) agreed, in Phillips v Arnold [2009] TASSC 43, 19 Tas R 21:
'A motion to review is not of the nature of an appeal by way of rehearing and the principles of Warren v Coombes (1979) 142 CLR 531 do not…

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 Jordan v Rutland

Details

AGLC: Jordan v Rutland [2020] TASSC 61
Case: [2020] TASSC 61
Decision Date: 18 December 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Jordan v Rutland is a decision of the Magistrates Court of Victoria, which was appealed to the County Court of Victoria. The case involves a dispute between Jordan, the appellant, and Rutland, the respondent, regarding two counts: one of assault and one of trespass. Jordan, the appellant, was found guilty by the Magistrates Court and appealed the decision to the County Court, arguing that the magistrate's findings were not reasonably open.

The primary legal issue that the County Court had to decide was whether the magistrate's findings of guilt on one count of assault and one count of trespass were reasonably open. This required the court to review the evidence presented and determine if the conclusions drawn by the magistrate were clearly open based on that evidence.

The County Court found that the magistrate's conclusions were clearly open. The court noted that the evidence, when viewed in its entirety, supported the findings of guilt. The court emphasised that in assessing whether a finding of guilt is reasonably open, it must be open to a reasonable mind, having regard to the evidence and the context in which it was given. The County Court concluded that the magistrate's findings were well within the bounds of what a reasonable mind could conclude, given the evidence. The appeal was, therefore, dismissed.

No further orders were made by the County Court beyond the dismissal of the appeal. The original findings of guilt in the Magistrates Court were upheld.

Orders