Smith v McDonald - [2010] TASSC 26

[2010] TASSC 26

COURT: SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA

CITATION: Smith v McDonald [2010] TASSC 26

PARTIES:  SMITH, Adam Brian
  v
  McDONALD, Scott Raymond

FILE NO/S:  1038/2009
DELIVERED ON:  3 June 2010
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATE:  15 March 2010
JUDGMENT OF:  Wood J

CATCHWORDS:

Magistrates – Appeals from and control over magistrates – Tasmania – Motion to review – The hearing – Generally – Inadequate and unreliable evidence of guilt.

Aust Dig Magistrates [272]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Applicant:  E Skalidis
             Respondent:  S Karpeles
Solicitors:
             Applicant:  Dobson, Mitchell and Allport
             Respondent:  Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment Number: [2010] TASSC 26
Number of paragraphs: 72

Serial No 26/2010
File No 1038/2009

ADAM BRIAN SMITH v SCOTT RAYMOND McDONALD

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT WOOD J

3 June 2010

The applicant has filed a notice to review his conviction for driving a motor vehicle while exceeding the prescribed alcohol limit contrary to the Road Safety (Alcohol and Drugs) Act 1970, s6(1). He was convicted after a hearing before the learned Chief Magistrate on 17 November 2009. At that hearing the only element of the offence that was in issue was whether the applicant was the driver of the motor vehicle. He did not dispute the other elements of the offence and that his blood alcohol reading was 0.321 grams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood. The grounds of review are:

"1That the learned magistrate erred in law in holding that, upon the whole of the evidence, the complaint was proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
2The learned magistrate erred in law in finding that evidence given by witness Peter Flynn called for the defence should be discounted on the basis that he was evasive and unresponsive."

The applicant's argument on appeal focussed on the first ground of review and the general grievance that the learned Chief Magistrate erred in law in reaching a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The argument involves an assessment of the evidence before the court and focuses exclusively on the only live issue at the hearing of whether the applicant was the driver. A significant amount of evidence was not in dispute. That uncontentious evidence is set out as follows.

Uncontentious evidence at hearing

On Saturday night 8 February 2009, at approximately 4am, the applicant's Volkswagen "Beetle" collided with a power pole in Fisher Avenue on the corner of Chessington Court in Sandy Bay. Police officers, Senior Constable Barber and Constable Blacklow, were called to attend. They found the applicant lying on the road near his motor vehicle injured but conscious. It transpired that prior to the collision he had travelled in his motor vehicle from a party held in Hampshire Road. At the scene was a nurse, Ms Sue-Ellen Gough, who lived nearby and, on hearing the crash had come to offer assistance. The applicant exhibited signs of intoxication. He was taken by ambulance to hospital. As noted, his blood alcohol reading was .321 grams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood. He was admitted to hospital and received treatment…

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 Smith v McDonald

Details

AGLC: Smith v McDonald [2010] TASSC 26
Case: [2010] TASSC 26
Decision Date: 3 June 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Smith v McDonald, the respondent, Smith, appealed against a conviction by the Magistrates Court of Tasmania, challenging the adequacy and reliability of the evidence presented. The case was heard before the Court of Criminal Appeal in Tasmania, where the primary concern was the procedural fairness and the sufficiency of evidence to secure a conviction against the appellant. The appeal centred on whether the Magistrates Court properly exercised its discretion in convicting the appellant based on the evidence provided.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the evidence provided was sufficient to satisfy the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt and whether the magistrate appropriately exercised their discretion in convicting the appellant. The court needed to determine if the evidence was reliable enough to support the conviction and if there was any procedural unfairness in the handling of the case by the Magistrates Court.

The Court of Criminal Appeal found that the evidence presented was inadequate and unreliable, leading to an unsafe and unsatisfactory conviction. The court emphasised that for a conviction to be valid, the evidence must meet the high threshold of proof beyond reasonable doubt. In this case, the evidence was deemed insufficient as it did not meet this standard. Additionally, the court observed that the magistrate did not adequately consider the reliability and weight of the evidence, resulting in a miscarriage of justice. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the conviction was quashed.

Orders