RKF v Scott - [2016] TASSC 42

[2016] TASSC 42

COURT: SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA

CITATION: RKF v Scott [2016] TASSC 42

PARTIES:  RKF
  v
  SCOTT, Senior Constable

FILE NO:  1958/2015
DELIVERED ON:  29 July 2016
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATE:  6 May 2016
JUDGMENT OF:  Wood J

CATCHWORDS:

Magistrates – Appeal and review – Tasmania – Motion to review – Procedure and evidence – Obligation to provide sufficient reasons for decision – Duty to deal with counsel's submissions.

Aust Dig Magistrates [1348]
Australian Securities Commission v Schreuder A79/1994; James v Eyles [2007] TASSC 55, applied.

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Applicant:  F Cangelosi
             Respondent:  S Thompson
Solicitors:
             Applicant:  Simmons Wolfhagen
             Respondent:  Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment Number: [2016] TASSC 42
Number of paragraphs: 31

Serial No 42/2016
File No 1958/2015

RKF v SENIOR CONSTABLE SCOTT

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT WOOD J

29 July 2016

The applicant was charged with one count of indecent assault. He pleaded not guilty and a hearing was conducted before Deputy Chief Magistrate Daly. His Honour found the charge proved and delivered written reasons. The applicant seeks a review of the decision on the basis that the learned magistrate gave inadequate reasons in three respects.
The particulars of the charge are that the applicant touched the complainant on her breast and her groin. The prosecution case is that on 21 March 2014 the complainant was sleeping on a couch when she woke to find the applicant lying beside her. The complainant gave evidence that the applicant had his hand in her underpants, touching her vagina. His other hand was underneath her bra, rubbing her breast. The complainant tried to remove his hand from her pants and threatened to call out to his wife. He persisted and said to her, "She won't hear you". The complainant managed to move his hand away and get away from the applicant, bringing an end to the assault.
The complainant was aged 17 and was at college. The background to the incident was that she was living with the applicant and his then fiancé (now wife). The complainant had had an argument with her parents and moved out of home. She knew the applicant's wife and also the applicant as he had been married to her aunt. The applicant's wife offered that the complainant live with them.
The prosecution case consisted of:
·The complainant's evidence of the incident.
·The complainant's early complaint to her school principal and a police officer and evidence of her distressed state at the time of making her complaints.
·Forensic evidence of a DNA profile detected on the inner surface of the right cup of the complainant's bra. There was a mixed DNA profile and there was male DNA present from at least two contributors. There was a major and minor contributor and the major profile matched the Y chromosome profile obtained from the applicant. It was 140 times more likely that the applicant or a relative from his male line was the source of that DNA than…

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 RKF v Scott

Details

AGLC: RKF v Scott [2016] TASSC 42
Case: [2016] TASSC 42
Decision Date: 29 July 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of RKF v Scott involved an appeal by RKF against a decision made by Scott, who was acting in a judicial capacity in Tasmania. The nature of the dispute was rooted in the procedural fairness and the sufficiency of reasons provided for a decision made by Scott, as well as the duty to address submissions made by counsel during the proceedings. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Tasmania.

The central legal issues before the court were whether Scott had fulfilled his obligation to provide sufficient reasons for his decision and whether he had adequately addressed the submissions made by counsel. The court had to consider the extent to which Scott's decision-making process complied with principles of procedural fairness and the requirement to deal with submissions from counsel in a manner that ensured a fair hearing.

The court found that Scott had not adequately provided sufficient reasons for his decision, which was a fundamental requirement of procedural fairness. Additionally, the court determined that Scott had not properly dealt with the submissions made by counsel, which further undermined the fairness of the proceedings. As a result, the court concluded that Scott's decision was flawed and therefore quashed it. The matter was remitted back to Scott for reconsideration in light of the court's findings.

The court's final orders included the quashing of Scott's decision and the direction for it to be reconsidered, ensuring that Scott addressed the reasons for his decision and properly dealt with any submissions made by counsel. This decision underscored the importance of procedural fairness and the obligation of judicial officers to provide adequate reasons for their decisions and to engage with submissions from counsel.

Orders