Oakley v Lockley - [2018] TASSC 37

[2018] TASSC 37

COURT: SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA

CITATION: Oakley v Lockley [2018] TASSC 37

PARTIES:  OAKLEY, Kerry Robin
  v
  LOCKLEY, Andrew

FILE NO:  3227/2017
DELIVERED ON:  16 August 2018
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATE:  31 July 2018
JUDGMENT OF:  Blow CJ

CATCHWORDS:

Magistrates – Appeal and review – Tasmania – Motion to review – Other matters – Conviction for assault with indecent intent – Whether magistrate could not reasonably have found guilt.

Aust Dig Magistrates [1349]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Applicant:  J Crotty
             Respondent:  S Nicholson
Solicitors:
             Applicant:  Crotty Legal
             Respondent:  Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment Number: [2018] TASSC 37
Number of paragraphs: 23

Serial No 37/2018
File No 3227/2017

KERRY ROBIN OAKLEY v CONSTABLE ANDREW LOCKLEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BLOW CJ

16 August 2018

This is a motion for the review of a conviction imposed by the Deputy Chief Magistrate, Mr M Daly, in respect of a charge of assault with indecent intent. The charge concerned an incident that was said to have occurred on 13 November 2015 in the Muslim prayer room at the University of Tasmania. The applicant in these proceedings, Kerry Oakley, was found guilty of that offence by the learned magistrate. On the day in question he was working at the university as a security guard. It was alleged that he indecently assaulted a woman who also worked at the university "by groping her breasts and fondling her buttocks over her clothing". At the end of a defended hearing, the learned magistrate found the charge proved and convicted the applicant. He has sought a review of that conviction.
The applicant contends that, on the evidence that was before the learned magistrate, no magistrate acting reasonably could have been satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that he was guilty of the offence charged. This motion to review must fail unless I am satisfied of that: Phillips v Arnold [2009] TASSC 43, 19 Tas R 21 per Crawford CJ, with whom the other members of the Full Court agreed, at [46].
The complainant's evidence as to what happened in the prayer room was to the following effect. The applicant was alone with her in a computer room area. He asked if she had been to the prayer room. She explained that she had not, because it was a place for men. He asked her to go into the room to look at the effects of a flood. The carpet had been lifted. When she was in the room, she saw that the door was closing and that the applicant was walking towards her. He then proceeded to grab her breasts. While doing that, he was "making sexual growling noises". He had one hand on each breast. He lowered his hands as if to try to get them under her top, but did not get "skin to skin". She stepped around him to go out of the room. She went straight past him saying, "No, we're just friends, you have got the…

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 Oakley v Lockley

Details

AGLC: Oakley v Lockley [2018] TASSC 37
Case: [2018] TASSC 37
Decision Date: 16 August 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Oakley v Lockley, the appellant, Mr. Oakley, sought a review of his conviction for assault with indecent intent, which was determined in the Magistrates Court of Tasmania. The decision to appeal was based on the grounds that the magistrate could not reasonably have found him guilty of the offence. The court was tasked with assessing the sufficiency of the evidence presented to support the conviction and whether the magistrate's decision was justifiable.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the magistrate could reasonably have made the decision to convict the appellant, given the evidence presented. The appellant argued that the evidence did not support a finding of indecent assault beyond reasonable doubt, and that the magistrate's decision was therefore flawed. The court was required to determine if the magistrate's findings were open to review based on the evidence and whether the decision was reasonable in light of that evidence.

The court considered the evidence presented and the magistrate's reasoning in reaching the conviction. It found that the magistrate's decision to convict was open to review, as the evidence did not support a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The court emphasised the importance of the magistrate's role in ensuring that the conviction is supported by sufficient evidence, and that the decision must be reasonable in light of the evidence presented. The appeal was allowed, and the conviction was quashed.

Orders