Legal Research
Cases
Shi v Wilkie

Shi v Wilkie

Case [2021] TASFC 1 12 February 2021

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

[2021] TASFC 1

COURT:	SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA (FULL COURT)
CITATION:	Shi v Wilkie [2021] TASFC 1
PARTIES:	SHI, Xuede
v
WILKIE, Scott
FILE NO:	1658/2019
DELIVERED ON:	12 February 2021
DELIVERED AT:	Hobart
HEARING DATE:	25 March 2020
JUDGMENT OF:	Blow CJ, Wood J, Pearce J
CATCHWORDS:

Appeal and New Trial – Appeal – General principles – Right of appeal – When appeal lies – Error of law – Particular cases involving error of law – Failure to give reasons for decision – Extent of obligation to give reasons – Adequacy of reasons.

Aust Dig Appeal and New Trial [24]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:

Appellant: K Baumeler
Respondent: J Hartnett

Solicitors:

Appellant: Murdoch Clarke
Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment Number:	[2020] TASSC 1
Number of paragraphs:	41

Serial No 1/2021

File No 1659/2019

XUEDE SHI v ACTING SERGEANT SCOTT WILKIE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT	FULL COURT BLOW CJ WOOD J PEARCE J 12 February 2021
Order the Court
Appeal dismissed.

Serial No 1/2021

File No 1659/2019

XUEDE SHI v ACTING SERGEANT SCOTT WILKIE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

FULL COURT
BLOW CJ
WOOD J
PEARCE J
12 February 2021

1 On 5 March 2019 the appellant was found guilty by a magistrate, Chief Magistrate Geason, of assault with indecent intent contrary to the Police Offences Act 1935, s 35(3). A motion to review the magistrate's decision was heard by Estcourt J. On 25 September 2019 his Honour dismissed the motion: Xuede Shi v Acting Sergeant Scott Wilkie, 25 September 2019. This is an appeal against his Honour's decision. The sole ground is that his Honour "erred in law by failing to give sufficient reasons and/or failing to sufficiently state the basis for making relevant findings". The ground of appeal includes particulars of the appellant's contentions about inadequacy of reasons, which are explained later in these reasons.
2 For the following reasons the appeal should be dismissed.

The summary proceedings

3 The charge was heard by the Chief Magistrate over the course of three days at the end of 2018 and early 2019. The complainant was a customer of the salon in which the appellant worked as a hairdresser. The prosecution case was that, in the course of a hairdressing appointment on 22 June 2017, the appellant assaulted her by placing his hands on her breasts and touching her thigh. The complainant and the appellant were the only persons present in the salon at the time. It followed that it was an "oath on oath case" and the credibility of the complainant, and the weight to be attributed to her evidence, as against the weight to be attributed to the evidence of the appellant, were of fundamental importance. The prosecution case depended on the learned magistrate being satisfied, beyond reasonable doubt, of the truthfulness and reliability of the complainant's evidence, despite the appellant's denials of indecent touching.
4 On 5 March 2019 the learned Chief Magistrate found the charge proved, although not in every particular.…

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 Shi v Wilkie

Details

AGLC: Shi v Wilkie [2021] TASFC 1
Case: [2021] TASFC 1
Decision Date: 12 February 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Shi (the appellant) appealed to the Supreme Court of Tasmania against a decision of the Magistrates Court. The dispute concerned a claim for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident. The Magistrates Court had dismissed the appellant's claim, but the reasons provided for this decision were brief and lacked detail.

The primary legal issue before the Supreme Court was whether the Magistrates Court had erred in law by failing to provide adequate reasons for its decision. The appellant argued that the insufficient reasons prevented them from understanding the basis of the dismissal and therefore hindered their ability to properly assess grounds for appeal.

The Supreme Court, comprising Blow CJ, Wood J, and Pearce J, held that while a judicial officer is not required to provide exhaustive reasons, the reasons given must be sufficient to enable a party to understand the decision and to identify potential grounds for appeal. In this instance, the court found that the reasons provided by the Magistrates Court were inadequate. The failure to articulate the factual findings and the legal reasoning underpinning the dismissal constituted an error of law.

Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and ordered that the matter be remitted to the Magistrates Court for a rehearing.

Orders