McKenna v Lyons - [2018] TASSC 54

[2018] TASSC 54

COURT: SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA

CITATION: McKenna v Lyons [2018] TASSC 54

PARTIES:  McKENNA, Angela
  v
  LYONS, Jason

FILE NO:  2031/2017
DELIVERED ON:  19 October 2018
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATE:  16 March 2018
JUDGMENT OF:  Brett J

CATCHWORDS:

Magistrates – Hearing – Evidence – Other matters – Matters relating to decision – Appeal against finding of guilt on one count of common assault – Whether finding of guilt was reasonably open to the magistrate – Evidence of injuries and from eye witness support magistrate's finding – Finding of guilt clearly open to the magistrate.

Cuthbert v Coates [2018] TASSC 7, applied.
Aust Dig Magistrates [1153].

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
           Applicant:  In person
           Respondent:  S Thompson
Solicitors:
           Respondent:  Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment Number: [2018] TASSC 54
Number of paragraphs: 14

Serial No 54/2018
File No 2031/2017

ANGELA McKENNA v CONSTABLE JASON LYONS

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BRETT J

19 October 2018

The applicant was charged on complaint with one count of common assault, arising from events which occurred on 14 November 2015. She was alleged to have punched her former partner's girlfriend in the face during a verbal exchange between them, after a chance meeting on the dance floor during the course of a musical event. The complaint was heard by Magistrate T Jago. On 5 May 2017, her Honour found that the charge had been proved. The applicant was fined the sum of $650, although the magistrate did not record a conviction.
On 14 July 2017, well outside the 21 day time limit imposed by the Justices Act 1959, s 107(3), the applicant filed a notice of motion seeking review of both conviction and sentence. On 8 November 2017, Pearce J extended that time limit to the date of filing of the notice. His Honour granted the extension of time on the basis of grounds of review which asserted that:
(a)the magistrate could not, as a reasonable person, on the evidence before her, have been satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the applicant's guilt in respect of the charge; and
(b)the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive.
The applicant appeared before me on the hearing of the motion without legal representation. It became clear during the course of submissions that she had no complaint in relation to the severity of sentence. Her concern was with the finding of guilt, and she pressed the ground relating to that finding. However, the applicant, in effect, abandoned the ground relating to sentence. That concession was appropriate. It is beyond argument that a modest fine without conviction in respect of a relatively serious assault was within the proper sentencing discretion of the magistrate.
In relation to the ground which attacks the finding of guilt, the question for me is whether such a finding was, on the evidence before the magistrate, open to her as a reasonable person. That ground can therefore only succeed if I am satisfied that the magistrate, as a reasonable person, could…

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 McKenna v Lyons

Details

AGLC: McKenna v Lyons [2018] TASSC 54
Case: [2018] TASSC 54
Decision Date: 19 October 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of McKenna versus Lyons involved an appeal against a finding of guilt on one count of common assault. The case was heard in a Magistrates Court. The defendant, McKenna, was found guilty of assaulting Lyons. McKenna sought to appeal this decision, arguing that the finding of guilt was not reasonably open to the magistrate.

The court was required to decide whether the finding of guilt was reasonably open to the magistrate. This involved reviewing the evidence presented, including evidence of injuries and eyewitness accounts, to determine whether the magistrate's decision was supported by the evidence. The court had to consider whether the evidence was sufficient to prove the assault beyond a reasonable doubt.

In considering the appeal, the court found that the evidence of injuries and eyewitness accounts supported the magistrate's finding of guilt. The injuries sustained by the victim and the testimony of the witnesses were sufficient to prove the assault beyond a reasonable doubt. The court concluded that the finding of guilt was clearly open to the magistrate and dismissed the appeal. As a result, the original finding of guilt stood.

The court did not make any further orders in relation to the case. The appeal was dismissed, and the original decision of the magistrate remained in place.

Orders