Minney v White - [2003] TASSC 54

[2003] TASSC 54

CITATION: Minney v White [2003] TASSC 54

PARTIES: MINNEY, Anthony John

v
WHITE, Graham Ross

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA
JURISDICTION:  APPELLATE
FILE NO/S:  LCA 22/2003
DELIVERED ON:  20 June 2003
DELIVERED AT:  Launceston
HEARING DATE:  19 June 2003
JUDGMENT OF:  Evans J

CATCHWORDS:

Magistrates - Jurisdiction and procedure generally – Jurisdiction, powers and duties – Subject matter – Discretion of magistrate – Matters to be considered – Whether pending dangerous criminal application relevant to decision to commit for sentence.

Sentencing Act 1997 (Tas), s19.
Justices Act 1959 (Tas), s72 (1), s72B(2).
Hall v Braybook (1956) 95 CLR 260, applied.
Aust Dig Magistrates [12]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
           Applicant:  S J N Brown
           Respondent:  J P Ranson
Solicitors:
           Applicant:  Legal Aid Commission of Tasmania
           Respondent:  Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment Number: [2003] TASSC 54
Number of paragraphs: 10

Serial No 54/2003
File No LCA 22/2003

ANTHONY JOHN MINNEY v GRAHAM ROSS WHITE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT EVANS J
20 June 2003

The applicant appeals against an order, made in a court of petty sessions, which commits the applicant to the Supreme Court for sentence on two charges of indecent assault in contravention of the Criminal Code, s127(1). The Justices Act 1959 ("the Act"), s72(1) and 72B(2) relevantly provide:

"72 — (1) Where a person is brought before justices upon a complaint for an offence —
(a) under a section of the Criminal Code referred to in Part I of schedule 3;
(b)...
(c)...
(d)...

instead of asking him to plead under section 56A, the justices may, in the prescribed form of words or in words of like import, ask the defendant if he is willing to be tried by the justices instead of by jury and, if that person, ... does not object to his being tried by the justices, the section creating the offence shall be deemed to have created a simple offence and the complaint shall be dealt with accordingly, subject to the provisions of this section.
72B — (1) …
(2) If, during the hearing of a charge to be determined under this Part, the justices consider for any reason that the charge should be dealt with in the Supreme Court, they shall —
(a)if they have not convicted the defendant, either abandon the hearing and begin again in accordance with Part VII or complete it and convict or discharge the defendant and if they convict him commit him to the Supreme Court for sentence; or
(b)if they have convicted the defendant, commit him to the Supreme Court for sentence."

The Criminal Code, s127(1) is one of the sections detailed in the Act, PtI, sch 3. Consistent with the Act, s72(1), the applicant, having been asked whether he was willing to be tried in the court of petty sessions on the charges he faced and having indicated that he did not object, the hearing of the charges proceeded before the learned chief magistrate. Following a defended hearing the learned chief magistrate announced…

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 Minney v White

Details

AGLC: Minney v White [2003] TASSC 54
Case: [2003] TASSC 54
Decision Date: 20 June 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved Minney and White, with the nature of the dispute centring around the jurisdiction and procedure of the Magistrates Court. The court was tasked with determining whether the magistrate had the appropriate jurisdiction and whether the procedures followed were in accordance with the law. The central legal issue revolved around the magistrate's discretion in deciding whether to commit an individual for sentence, specifically focusing on whether pending dangerous criminal applications should be considered in this decision-making process. The court was required to consider the statutory framework governing the magistrate's discretion and the relevant procedural guidelines.

In addressing the legal issue, the court examined the statutory provisions and case law that delineate the scope of the magistrate's discretion. The court considered whether the magistrate had correctly applied the relevant criteria in making the decision to commit for sentence, and whether the consideration of pending dangerous criminal applications was a relevant factor. The court also assessed whether the magistrate had exercised their discretion reasonably and in accordance with the law. Ultimately, the court determined that the magistrate had appropriately exercised their discretion, taking into account the relevant statutory and procedural requirements.

The court concluded that the magistrate had correctly exercised their discretion in deciding to commit the individual for sentence. The court found that the consideration of pending dangerous criminal applications was indeed a relevant factor in the decision-making process, and that the magistrate had appropriately weighed this factor along with other relevant considerations. The court also found that the magistrate had followed the correct procedure and had not acted beyond their jurisdiction. Consequently, the court upheld the magistrate's decision to commit the individual for sentence.

No further orders were made by the court, as the primary issue concerning the magistrate's jurisdiction and discretion had been resolved in favour of the decision made. The court's decision provided clarity on the factors that should be considered by magistrates when exercising their discretion in similar matters in the future.

Orders