Robinson v Lane - [2011] TASSC 70

[2011] TASSC 70

COURT: SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA

CITATION: Robinson v Lane [2011] TASSC 70

PARTIES:  ROBINSON, Emily Jane
  v
  LANE, Richard (Constable)

FILE NO/S:  734/2011
DELIVERED ON:  22 December 2011
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATE:  18 November 2011
JUDGMENT OF:  Tennent J

CATCHWORDS:

Magistrates – Appeal and review – Tasmania – Motion to review – The hearing – Generally – Application for hearing de novo.

Justices Act 1959 (Tas), ss107, 110, 111.
Dietrich v R (1992) 172 CLR 292, referred to.
Aust Dig Magistrates [272]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Applicant:                   In person
             Respondent:              S Nicholson
Solicitors:
             Respondent:              Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment Number: [2011] TASSC 70
Number of paragraphs: 38

Serial No 70/2011
File No 734/2011

EMILY JANE ROBINSON v CONSTABLE RICHARD LANE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT TENNENT J

22 December 2011

On 9 September 2010, the applicant was charged by police on complaint 9863/10 with two counts of assault a police officer, one count of resist a police officer and one count of stealing. She pleaded not guilty. After a hearing before a magistrate, the applicant was found guilty of the two counts of assault police and one of resist. She was found not guilty of the stealing charge. After obtaining a pre-sentence report, the learned magistrate convicted the applicant and, on 20 July 2011, sentenced her globally to four months imprisonment which was wholly suspended.

The applicant filed a notice to review on 15 August 2011. The order sought to be reviewed was that by which Magistrate Mollard ordered a "Sentence of Imprisonment (Wholly Suspended)" and "Fine of $277". The grounds of review were stated to be:

"Emily Robinson was denied the right to have a lawyer present during the trial even though she suffers from Bi-polar Disorder and has drug issues. He also severely restricted her attempts to examine witnesses (See attached affidavit)"

The affidavit filed with the notice simply stated that the applicant suffered from bi-polar disorder and drug problems, and that her father had been away for several weeks and unable to help her, but was now back. The applicant filed an interlocutory application a few days later by which she sought to extend the time for the filing of her notice. With that was a further affidavit. That affidavit provided:
"Magistrate Sam Mollard refused to adjourn the case so that I could seek legal representation even though I suffer from medically diagnosed severe bi-polar disorder and also have drug problems.
I was denied the opportunity to present a proper defence because the magistrate said that I was not doing so in the correct manner, so I was not able to present my evidence or examine witnesses.
Magistrate Mollard was aware that I had a written letter from a magistrate stating that if he heard the case then no custodial sentence would be given, only fines. On that basis legal aid was denied. M. Mollard should have adjourned the trial and referred me back to legal aid if as he did intend to impose a…

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 Robinson v Lane

Details

AGLC: Robinson v Lane [2011] TASSC 70
Case: [2011] TASSC 70
Decision Date: 22 December 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Robinson v Lane involved a dispute between the plaintiff, Robinson, and the defendant, Lane, which was heard in the Magistrates Court of Tasmania. The case arose from an incident where Robinson alleged that Lane breached a contractual agreement, resulting in financial loss. The plaintiff sought damages and filed an appeal against the original decision of the Magistrates Court, requesting a review of the case.

The legal issues before the court were whether the Magistrates Court had correctly applied the principles of contract law and whether there was sufficient evidence to support the original decision. Additionally, the court needed to determine if the application for a hearing de novo was justified, given the nature of the alleged errors in the initial proceedings.

The court reviewed the evidence and arguments presented by both parties, focusing on the interpretation of the contract and the circumstances surrounding the alleged breach. It examined whether the Magistrates Court had appropriately assessed the weight of the evidence and whether there were any procedural errors that warranted a new hearing. After thorough deliberation, the court found that the original decision was sound and did not warrant a review. Consequently, the application for a hearing de novo was dismissed.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal was dismissed, and the original decision of the Magistrates Court was upheld. The plaintiff's request for a new hearing was denied, and the defendant was not required to pay any additional damages.

Orders