Marley-Duncan v Police

Case

[2015] SASC 146

24 September 2015


Details
AGLC Case Decision Date
Marley-Duncan v Police [2015] SASC 146 [2015] SASC 146 24 September 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Marley-Duncan v Police, the appellant, Ms Marley-Duncan, sought to appeal the decision of the magistrate who had confirmed an intervention order against her. The order was made pursuant to the Family and Domestic Violence Protection Act 2012 (SA) and required Ms Marley-Duncan to refrain from engaging in behaviour that may cause fear or concern to Ms Duffield. The application for the intervention order arose from four incidents of alleged intimidation and harassment directed at Ms Duffield. Ms Marley-Duncan contended that the magistrate erred in confirming the intervention order as there was no reasonable suspicion that she would, if unrestrained, commit an act of abuse against Ms Duffield.

The court was required to determine whether the magistrate had made the necessary findings in order to confirm the intervention order in accordance with the Act. The respondent submitted that the magistrate had correctly evaluated the evidence and had made the necessary findings to justify the confirmation of the order. The court had to consider the magistrate’s assessment of the evidence and determine if it was open to the magistrate to conclude that an intervention order was necessary to protect Ms Duffield.

The court found that the magistrate had undertaken an evaluation and assessment of the evidence given by Ms Duffield. The magistrate found her evidence to be exaggerated but held that, based on the rest of the evidence, including the appellant’s evidence and the video evidence, an intervention order was necessary to protect Ms Duffield. The court held that this finding was open to the magistrate and was justified by an independent review of the evidence relied upon by the magistrate. The court further held that the basis for confirming an interim intervention order is a reasonable suspicion that, unless restrained, the appellant would cause harm to Ms Duffield. The court concluded that the magistrate’s decision to confirm the intervention order was justified.

The appeal was dismissed, and the intervention order was confirmed.
Details

Areas of Law

  • Civil Litigation & Procedure

  • Family Law

Legal Concepts

  • Interlocutory Orders

  • Res Judicata

  • Reasonable Suspicion

  • Intervention Order

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document


Cases Citing This Decision

26

JP v Police [2024] SASC 114
ID v Police [2022] SASC 89
Cases Cited

9

Statutory Material Cited

1

Groom v Police (No 3) [2013] SASC 93
Van Reesema v Police [2009] SASC 8