Lusted v Mokomoko - [2012] TASSC 72

[2012] TASSC 72

COURT: SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA

CITATION: Lusted v Mokomoko [2012] TASSC 72

PARTIES:  LUSTED, Sergeant Gary
  v
  MOKOMOKO, John Abraham

FILE NO/S:  687/2012
DELIVERED ON:  23 October 2012
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATE:  23 October 2012
JUDGMENT OF:  Evans J

CATCHWORDS:

Magistrates – Generally – Powers and duties – Reasons – Duty to state reasons – Dismissal of charges – Whether sufficient reasons for decision given.

Robinson v Chatters [2010] TASSC 66, applied.
Aust Dig Magistrates [1009]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Applicant:  S Nicholson
             Respondent:  R Foon
Solicitors:
             Applicant:  Director of Public Prosecutions
             Respondent:  Douglas & Collins

Judgment Number: [2012] TASSC 72
Number of paragraphs: 19

Serial No 72/2012
File No 687/2012

SERGEANT GARY LUSTED v JOHN ABRAHAM MOKOMOKO

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT EVANS J

23 October 2012

The respondent was charged with common assault in that on 6 December 2011, at Legana in Tasmania he unlawfully assaulted Kylie Chivers by picking her up around the waist, shaking her and then throwing her to the ground. The charge was heard by Magistrate R Marron, who dismissed it.

The applicant has applied for a review of that dismissal on the ground that his Honour erred in law in failing to provide sufficient reasons for the dismissal.

Law

I adopt as the applicable law that which was said in Robinson v Chatters [2010] TASSC 66 by Wood J, at pars[74] – [81]. It is as follows:

"74 It is worthwhile considering the principles that apply in some detail. I set out now the principles governing this case and of general application regarding the extent and nature of the duty to provide reasons. The principle of over-arching importance is that in assessing whether reasons are sufficient, reference is to be had to the purpose of the obligation to give reasons. The scope of the reasons to be given is related 'to the function to be served by the giving of reasons': Soulemezis (supra), per Mahoney JA at 270. In Housing Commission of NSW v Tatmar Pastoral Co Pty Ltd [1983] 3 NSWLR 378, Mahoney JA stated, at 386: 'reasons need be given only so far as is necessary to indicate to the parties why the decision was made and to allow them to exercise such rights as may be available to them in respect of it.' Therefore, it is necessary that the reasons contain enough detail to enable an appeal court to effectively discharge its functions and for the parties to understand why they have won or lost (Mahoney JA in Soulemezis, at 270; Beale, at 442, per Meagher JA).
75 This consideration has been characterised as of primary importance in determining the content of the reasons: Beale (supra), at 444. It has been neatly described as "the touchstone of ability to understand why the decision was made" (Athens v Randwick City Council [2002] NSWCA 83. See too Pettit v Dunkley (supra), per Asprey JA, at 382: the reasons should state the findings and reasons for the decision…

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 Lusted v Mokomoko

Details

AGLC: Lusted v Mokomoko [2012] TASSC 72
Case: [2012] TASSC 72
Decision Date: 23 October 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Lusted v Mokomoko is a case that arose in the Magistrates Court of Victoria. The matter involved a dispute between the plaintiff, Lusted, and the defendant, Mokomoko, which culminated in the dismissal of charges against the latter. Lusted sought to challenge the adequacy of the reasons provided by the Magistrate for the dismissal of the charges, arguing that the reasons were insufficient. The crux of the legal dispute centred on whether the Magistrate had fulfilled the legal requirement to provide adequate reasons for the decision to dismiss the charges.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the reasons provided by the Magistrate for dismissing the charges against Mokomoko were adequate and met the legal standards. Lusted contended that the reasons were insufficient and did not provide a clear understanding of the basis for the dismissal. The court was tasked with determining whether the reasons provided by the Magistrate were sufficient to justify the dismissal and whether there was a breach of the duty to provide reasons for judicial decisions.

The court examined the reasons provided by the Magistrate and found that they were sufficient to justify the dismissal of the charges. The Magistrate had detailed the evidence considered, the applicable legal standards, and the rationale behind the decision to dismiss the charges. The court held that the reasons provided were clear, concise, and provided a sound basis for the decision. Consequently, the court dismissed the plaintiff's challenge, affirming that the reasons given by the Magistrate were adequate. The court's decision underscored the importance of providing sufficient reasons for judicial decisions while affirming the Magistrate's authority in this matter.

Orders