Pires v Edwards - [2022] TASSC 31

[2022] TASSC 31

COURT: SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA

CITATION: Pires v Edwards [2022] TASSC 31

PARTIES:  PIRES, Paulo Antunes
  v
  EDWARDS, Lisa

FILE NO:  LCA 2678/2021
DELIVERED ON:  18 May 2022
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATES:  10, 16 May 2022
JUDGMENT OF:  Pearce J

CATCHWORDS:

Magistrates – Appeal and review – Tasmania – Motion to review – Other matters – Appeal against finding of guilt on three counts of cruelty to an animal – Finding of guilt reasonably open to the magistrate.

Animal Welfare Act 1993 (Tas)
Phillips v Arnold [2009] TASSC 43, 19 Tas R 21, applied.
Aust Dig Magistrates [1349]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Appellant:  In person
             Respondent:  J Pedder
Solicitors:
             Respondent:  Pedder Schuh Lawyers

Judgment Number: [2022] TASSC 31
Number of paragraphs: 26

Serial No 31/2022
File No LCA 2678/2021

PAULO ANTUNES PIRES v LISA EDWARDS

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT PEARCE J
18 May 2022

The applicant, Paulo Pires, moves to review the decision of a magistrate, Mrs T Jago (now a judge of this Court), to find him guilty of charges brought against him under the Animal Welfare Act 1993 (the Act). The respondent is an officer of the RSPCA.
The applicant is unrepresented. He prepared the motion to review himself. It contains two grounds. The first raises the issue of his legal representation. The second asserts, in substance, that he should not have been found guilty. Neither ground succeeds. Subject to correction of one issue concerning the finding of guilt on some of the charges the motion will be dismissed.

The charges and the hearing

The applicant was charged on complaint with three counts of cruelty to an animal under the Act, s 8(1), and three counts of what was stated as a "continuing offence" of cruelty to animals under s 48D of the Act. All of the charges related to a female Shetland pony called Pebbles which was observed on 4 September 2020 by two RSPCA inspectors, one of whom was the respondent, Ms Edwards, when they attended a property at Kimberleys Hill Road, Milabena. For the charges under s 8 to be proved it was necessary for the prosecution to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the applicant did an act, or omitted to do a duty, which caused or was likely to cause unreasonable and unjustifiable pain or suffering to the pony. By s 8(2) a person commits an offence under s 8 if he or she has possession or custody of a sick or injured animal and fails to provide veterinary or other appropriate treatment for the animal. Under s 6, a person who has the care or charge of an animal "has a duty to take all reasonable measures to ensure the welfare of the animal."
The prosecution case was that between 1 March 2018 and 4 September 2020 the applicant had care or charge of the pony and "omitted to do a duty which was likely to cause unreasonable pain or suffering" to it.…

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 Pires v Edwards

Details

AGLC: Pires v Edwards [2022] TASSC 31
Case: [2022] TASSC 31
Decision Date: 18 May 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Pires v Edwards, the parties involved were Pires, the appellant, and Edwards, the respondent. The dispute centred around an appeal against a magistrate's finding of guilt on three counts of cruelty to an animal. The case was heard in the Magistrates Court of Tasmania, which had originally found Pires guilty of the offences. The court of appeal was tasked with reviewing the decision to determine whether the findings were reasonably open to the magistrate.

The central legal issue before the court of appeal was whether the magistrate's findings of guilt were reasonably open based on the evidence presented. The appellant argued that the findings were not reasonably open, contending that the evidence did not support a conviction. The respondent, on the other hand, maintained that the magistrate's findings were well-founded and based on credible evidence. The court had to assess the weight and credibility of the evidence and decide if the magistrate's conclusions were within the range of acceptable outcomes.

The court of appeal considered the evidence and concluded that the findings of guilt were reasonably open. The court found that the magistrate had carefully considered the evidence and made findings that were within the range of acceptable outcomes. The court emphasised the importance of allowing the original decision-maker's findings to stand unless there was a clear error in the application of the law or a failure to consider relevant evidence. Given the evidence and the magistrate's reasoning, the court found no such error or omission.

As a result of this determination, the appeal was dismissed. The original findings of guilt on the three counts of cruelty to an animal were upheld. The court's decision reinforced the principle that appellate courts should not lightly interfere with the findings of the original decision-maker unless there is a clear error or omission.

Orders