Robertson v Leferve - [2012] ACTSC 22

JODIE ROBERTSON V SHANE ALAIN LEFERVE
[2012] ACTSC 22 (8 February 2012)

CRIMINAL LAW – jurisdiction, practice and procedure – judgment and punishment – breach of good behaviour order made on appeal – which court should deal with breach – Magistrates Court should ordinarily deal with breach – s 218 Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT)

Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT) ss 216, 218, div 3.10.2
Magistrates Court Act 1991 (SA) s 42(6)
Justices Act 1958 (Vic) s 142(7)
Justices Act 1886 (Qld) s 225
Summary Proceedings Act 1957 (NZ) s 135(3)
Summary Jurisdictions Act 1848 (UK), 11 & 12 Vict, c 43, s 27
Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 107, 108
Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) s 20A
Sentencing Act 1997 (Tas), s 42
Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), s 132
Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) s 27

Robertson v Leferve

(unreported, Supreme Court of the ACT, Mathews AJ,
2 December 2010

Butler v Vickers [2011] ACTSC 134
Stone v Brien [2009] ACTSC 6
R v Adler [1972] VR 345
Ledson v Taylor (No 2) (2010) 239 FLR 360
Demer v Cook (1903) 88 LT 629
R v Sabine; Ex parte Lenthall [1929] SASR 123
R v Judge Leckie; Ex parte Felman (1977) 18 ALR 93
R v Nicholson [1951] VLR 273
Messel v Davern (1981) 54 FLR 376
Campbell v Fortey (1987) 85 FLR 462
AB v The Queen (1999) 198 CLR 111
Carroll v Price [1960] VR 651

ON APPEAL FROM THE MAGISTRATES COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

No. SCA 21 of 2010

Judge: Refshauge J
Supreme Court of the ACT

Date: 8 February 2012

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE     )
  )          No. SCA 21 of 2010
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY )

ON APPEAL FROM THE MAGISTRATES COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

BETWEEN:JODIE ROBERTSON
Appellant

AND:SHANE ALAIN LEFERVE
Defendant

ORDER

Judge:  Refshauge J
Date:  8 February 2012
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

The appeal against the sentence imposed by the Magistrates Court on 7 April 2010 for an offence of assault on 30 September 2009 be dismissed;

The parties be heard as to consequential orders to be made in consequence of the dismissal of that appeal;

The proceedings in respect of the breach of the good behaviour order made on 2 December 2010, alleged in the information of Sean Ehlers sworn 6 October 2011 be stayed;

Insofar as it is appropriate and desirable, leave be granted to the Respondent to take such proceedings in the Magistrates Court in respect of the breach alleged in the information of Sear Ehlers sworn 6 October 2011 as it may be advised.

On 30 September 2009, the appellant, Jodie Robertson, was involved in a relationship which was clearly volatile. On that day, she drove to her then partner’s residence and invited him to get into her van to attend with her at Centrelink.

She then drove the vehicle in a dangerous manner, while shouting obscenities at her partner. This included veering off the road, mounting the nature strip and…

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 Robertson v Leferve

Details

AGLC: Robertson v Leferve [2012] ACTSC 22
Case: [2012] ACTSC 22
Decision Date: 8 February 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Robertson v Leferve involved a dispute between the appellant, Robertson, and the respondent, Leferve, regarding the breach of a good behaviour order made by the Magistrates Court of the Australian Capital Territory. The case was heard by the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, which was called upon to decide the appropriate court to deal with the breach of the good behaviour order. The legal issue before the court was to determine whether the Magistrates Court or the Supreme Court should handle the matter of the breach of the good behaviour order.

The court considered the relevant legislation, specifically section 218 of the Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT), which provides that the Magistrates Court should ordinarily deal with any breach of a good behaviour order. The court held that, pursuant to this statutory provision, the Magistrates Court was the appropriate forum to deal with the matter of the breach of the good behaviour order made on appeal. The court found that the Supreme Court did not have jurisdiction to hear the matter and that it should have been dealt with by the Magistrates Court. The appeal against the sentence imposed by the Magistrates Court was therefore dismissed.

The Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory ruled that the Magistrates Court should ordinarily deal with any breach of a good behaviour order, in accordance with section 218 of the Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT). The appeal against the sentence imposed by the Magistrates Court for the offence of assault was dismissed, and the case was remitted to the Magistrates Court to deal with the matter of the breach of the good behaviour order. The court emphasised the importance of adhering to the statutory provisions regarding the jurisdiction of the respective courts in handling matters related to breaches of good behaviour orders.

Orders

Orders of the court

The appeal against the sentence imposed by the Magistrates Court on 7 April 2010 for an offence of assault on 30 September 2009 be dismissed;

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.