Robertson v Reardon - [2025] TASSC 21

[2025] TASSC 21

COURT:	SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA
CITATION:	Robertson v Reardon [2025] TASSC 21
PARTIES:	ROBERTSON, Shaun Anthony
v
REARDON, Sergeant Robert
FILE NO:	2424/2023
DELIVERED ON:	11 April 2025
DELIVERED AT:	Hobart
HEARING DATE:	4 April 2025
JUDGMENT OF:	Estcourt J
CATCHWORDS:

Magistrates – Appeal and review – Tasmania – Motion to review – Other matters – Application for hearing de novo – Failure by prosecutor to call witnesses and tender body worn camera footage – Footage and evidence of the witnesses was necessary to unfold the narrative and give a full account of events – In the circumstances the interests of justice required that the complaint against the applicant be heard de novo – Application granted.

Aust Dig Magistrates [1349]

Legislation:
Justices Act 1959 (Tas)
Road Safety (Alcohol and Drugs Act) 1970 (Tas)
Police Powers (Vehicle Interception) Act 2000 (Tas)

Evidence Act 2001 (Tas)

Cases:
Bedelph v Weedon [1963] Tas SR 69
Benson v Rogers [1966] Tas SR 97
Coombe v Bessell (1994) 4 Tas R 149
Coppleman v Godfrey [2014] TASSC 60
Munday v Cole [1979] Tas R 311 (NC 14)
Nguyen v The Queen [2020] HCA 23
Phillips v Arnold [2009] TASSC 43, 19 Tas R 21
Richardson v Shipp [1970] Tas SR 105
Taylor v Armour & Co Pty Ltd [1962] VR 346
Webster v White (No 2) [1991] TASSC 80
Wood v Smith [1991] TASSC 12
Ziems v The Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of New South Wales (1957) 97 CLR 279

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:

Appellant: N Edmondson
Respondent: A Godleman

Solicitors:

Appellant: Annalisa Doedens Legal
Respondent: Office of Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment Number:	[2025] TASSC 21
Number of paragraphs:	23

Serial No 21/2025 File No 2424/2023

SHAUN ANTHONY ROBERTSON v SERGEANT ROBERT REARDON

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT	ESTCOURT J 11 April 2025
The application

1 Pursuant to s 107 of the Justices Act 1959, the applicant sought a review of the findings of guilt made by Magistrate McKee, on 23 August 2023, whereby his Honour found proved charges 1 and 2 on complaint number 8216/2020 charging, respectively, the offence of driving whilst exceeding the prescribed alcohol limit in breach of s 6(1) of the Road Safety (Alcohol and Drugs Act) 1970 and the offence of evading police (aggravated circumstances) in breach of s 11A(2A) of the Police Powers (Vehicle Interception) Act 2000.
2 A motion to review is not of the nature of an appeal by way of rehearing. On a review of the conclusion of a magistrate based on the evidence, the question is whether the magistrate might, as a reasonable person, have come to the conclusion to which he or she did. Applicants in most cases, will find it difficult to satisfy this test, and courts will rarely overturn such decisions. In Phillips v Arnold

[2009] TASSC 43, 19 Tas R 21 Crawford CJ said at [46]-[47].

"46 Those principles include the following. The Justices Act, s107(4)(a), requires there to be…

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 Reardon

Details

AGLC: Robertson v Reardon [2025] TASSC 21
Case: [2025] TASSC 21
Decision Date: 11 April 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in Robertson v Reardon before the Magistrates Court of Tasmania concerns the decision to review a conviction and sentence. The applicant, Mr Reardon, sought a review of his conviction for assault after the prosecutor failed to call witnesses and tender body worn camera footage that was critical to the case. Mr Robertson, the complainant, opposed the application.

The central issue before the court was whether the failure by the prosecutor to call witnesses and tender crucial evidence warranted a hearing de novo, effectively starting the case afresh. This issue required the court to consider whether the interests of justice were served by allowing the application and whether the outcome would have been different had the evidence been properly presented.

The court found that the evidence in question was necessary to properly unfold the narrative and provide a full account of the events. The court held that the interests of justice required the complaint against Mr Reardon to be heard de novo. It was determined that the absence of the evidence and witnesses precluded a fair assessment of the case, and thus a new hearing was warranted to ensure a just outcome.

The court granted the application for a hearing de novo, allowing the case to be retried with the inclusion of the previously omitted evidence. The final orders mandated that the original conviction and sentence be set aside and that a new hearing be conducted to reassess the charges against Mr Reardon.

Orders