Lawson v Jordan - [2015] TASSC 47

[2015] TASSC 47

COURT: SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA

CITATION: Lawson v Jordan [2015] TASSC 47

PARTIES:  LAWSON, Conrad Miles
  v
  JORDAN, Steven (Sergeant)

FILE NO:  1061/2014
DELIVERED ON:  19 October 2015
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATE:  12 May 2015
JUDGMENT OF:  Tennent J

CATCHWORDS:

Magistrates – Appeal and review – Tasmania – Motion to review – Other matters - Assertion magistrate failed to direct herself as to relevant legal principles and had given inadequate reasons.

Goodrich Aerospace Pty Ltd v Arsic [2006] NSWCA 187; Caccavo v Collins [2014] TASFC 7, referred to.
Aust Dig Magistrates [1349]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Applicant:  D Gunson SC and R Meredith
             Respondent:  S Nicholson
Solicitors:
             Applicant:  Wallace Wilkinson & Webster
             Respondent:  Acting Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment Number: [2015] TASSC 47
Number of paragraphs: 109

Serial No 47/2015
File No 1061/2014

CONRAD MILES LAWSON v SERGEANT STEVEN JORDAN

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT TENNENT J

19 October 2015

The applicant was charged with one count of indecent assault contrary to the Criminal Code, s 127(1), and one count of stalking contrary to the Code, s 192, on complaint number 6813/13. The complainant in respect of both matters was JL. The particulars of the indecent assault charge were that on 25 July 2012 at Rosny the applicant unlawfully and indecently assaulted JL by rubbing his exposed penis on her face. As to the count of stalking, the complaint alleged that between 30 April 2010 and 31 August 2013 with the intention of causing JL mental harm and apprehension, the applicant did a number of things. These were listed in a later attachment to the complaint and were as follows:
"You used the internet in a way that could reasonably be expected to cause [JL] to be apprehensive or fearful
By sending her a facebook message on the 30^th of April 2010 threatening to punch her and stating if she didn't want a relationship with you she should go and kill herself
By sending her a facebook message on the 14^th of June 2010 stating she should kill herself and that you wondered if police would find out that you raped her if it was done after you killed her
By sending her an email on the 13^th of February 2011 stating you would punch her to suicide and also threatening to kill her
By sending her a facebook message on the 25^th of July 2012 stating that she deserved what happened that day
By sending her a facebook message on the 26^th of July 2012 stating the only way you could be together was murder suicide
By sending her numerous facebook messages on the 27^th of July 2012 requesting she forgive you and stating fingering a chick is bloody awesome
By sending her a facebook message on the 28^th of July 2012 threatening to post a picture of her underwear to facebook telling people you'd had rough sex
By sending her…

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 Lawson v Jordan

Details

AGLC: Lawson v Jordan [2015] TASSC 47
Case: [2015] TASSC 47
Decision Date: 19 October 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Lawson v Jordan, the appeal before the court arose from a decision made by a magistrate in Tasmania. The nature of the dispute involved a claim that the magistrate had failed to properly direct herself on the relevant legal principles and had provided inadequate reasons for her decision. The case was brought before the court for review to determine whether the magistrate's actions warranted reconsideration.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the magistrate had indeed failed to adequately apply the relevant legal principles and whether her reasons were sufficiently detailed. The court needed to assess the adequacy of the magistrate's application of the law and the sufficiency of her reasons to justify her decision. This involved scrutinising the magistrate's approach to the relevant legal principles and the comprehensiveness of her reasoning process.

Upon review, the court found that the magistrate had not misdirected herself on the relevant legal principles. The reasoning provided by the magistrate was deemed sufficient to support her decision, even though it might have been more detailed. The court concluded that while the reasons could have been more comprehensive, they were adequate enough to uphold the magistrate's decision. Consequently, the court dismissed the motion to review the magistrate's decision.

The final orders of the court were that the motion to review the magistrate's decision was dismissed, and no further action was required in this matter. The magistrate's decision was upheld as it stood, and the court found no basis to interfere with the outcome.

Orders