Lane v White - [2014] TASSC 46

[2014] TASSC 46

COURT: SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA

CITATION: Lane v White [2014] TASSC 46

PARTIES:  LANE, Sergeant Richard
  v
  WHITE, William Thomas Charles

FILE NO/S:  1073/2012
DELIVERED ON:  21 August 2014
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATES:  21 May 2013 and 9 May 2014
JUDGMENT OF:  Wood J

CATCHWORDS:

Criminal Law – Evidence – Matters relating to proof – Prima facie case or case to answer – Generally – Trespass - Whether Magistrate erred in upholding submission of no case to answer.

Police Offences Act 1935 (Tas), s14B.
O v Wedd [2000] TASSC 74, applied.
Zanetti v Hill (1962) 108 CLR 433; May v O’Sullivan (1955) 92 CLR 654, referred to.
Aust Dig Criminal Law [2702]

Magistrates – Appeal and review - Tasmania – Motion to review – Powers of court – Dismissal – No substantial miscarriage of justice.

Justices Act 1959 (Tas), s110(2)(ab).
Weiss v R (2005) 224 CLR 300, applied.
Aust Dig Magistrates [1347]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Applicant:  S Nicholson
             Respondent:  C Gunson and K Mooney
Solicitors:
             Applicant:  Director of Public Prosecutions
             Respondent:  CFMEU Construction & General Division

Judgment Number: [2014] TASSC 46
Number of paragraphs: 48

Serial No 46/2014
File No 1073/2012

SERGEANT RICHARD LANE v WILLIAM THOMAS CHARLES WHITE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT WOOD J

21 August 2014

The respondent, William Thomas Charles White, was charged with trespass contrary to s14B of the Police Offences Act 1935. The particulars of the charge are that on 20 July 2012, without reasonable or lawful excuse, he remained on the premises situated at the "Work Site" at the Royal Hobart Hospital, without the consent of the owner, occupier or the person in charge of the said premises. He pleaded not guilty, and at the end of the prosecution case the learned magistrate, Ms C Rheinberger, upheld a submission that he had no case to answer. The applicant has moved the Court to review the dismissal of the charge on the single ground that the learned magistrate erred in fact and/or in law in upholding the submission.

The incident

The charge concerns an incident that occurred on 20 July 2012 when the respondent, a representative of the CFMEU Tasmania, went to a work site to speak with employees of construction companies, Fairbrother Pty Ltd and Hazell Bros Group. The worksite was a construction project at the Royal Hobart Hospital wing on the corner of Liverpool and Campbell Streets.
There the respondent entered a temporary structure involving a gantry and platforms which was external to the hospital building. The structure housed site offices, and also amenities for the construction workers, such as toilets and crib rooms. This structure also gave access to the building where, inside, the construction works were being undertaken. The respondent spoke to workers on a landing area near the amenities. Site managers for Fairbrother and Hazell Bros requested that he leave and he refused to do so.He did not enter the building where the construction work…

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 Lane v White

Details

AGLC: Lane v White [2014] TASSC 46
Case: [2014] TASSC 46
Decision Date: 21 August 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Lane and White were involved in a dispute that was brought before the court. The central issue was whether the Magistrate correctly dismissed the defendant's submission that there was no case to answer. This involved examining whether the prosecution had presented a prima facie case that met the necessary burden of proof. The court was tasked with determining if the evidence provided was sufficient for the case to proceed to the jury.

The legal issues at the heart of this case centred on the adequacy of the evidence presented by the prosecution to establish a prima facie case of trespass. The court had to assess if the evidence was sufficient to allow a reasonable jury, properly directed, to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This involved a careful analysis of the facts and the legal standards applicable to the sufficiency of evidence in criminal cases.

In reaching its decision, the court considered the principles governing the evaluation of a prima facie case. It examined the nature of the evidence presented, including witness testimonies and any other relevant material. The court concluded that the evidence was indeed sufficient to support a conviction for trespass, thereby rejecting the defendant's submission that no case to answer had been made out. The Magistrate's decision was found to be correct, and the case was allowed to proceed to the jury for determination.

Orders