Smith v. Woodward - [2007] QDC 324

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Smith v Woodward [2007] QDC 324

PARTIES:

CLEEVE RAYMOND SMITH

Appellant

V

CHRISTIAN JOHN WOODWARD

Respondent

FILE NO/S:

BD 384/2006

DIVISION:

Appellate

PROCEEDING:

Appeal under s 222, Justices Act 1886

ORIGINATING COURT:

Magistrates Court, Maryborough

DELIVERED ON:

7 December 2007

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

2 November 2007; further written submissions received 16 and 21 November 2007

JUDGE:

Alan Wilson SC, DCJ

ORDER:

1 Appellant’s application to adduce further evidence refused

2 Appeal dismissed

3 Order that the appellant pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the application, and the appeal (including reserved costs) assessed on the standard basis

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL – APPEAL AGAINST DECISION OF MAGISTRATE – whether Magistrate failed to consider all the evidence

APPEAL – LEAVE TO ADDUCE FRESH EVIDENCE – exercise of discretion to admit fresh evidence

Justices Act 1886, s 223(2)
Evidence Act 1977, ss 21A and 93A

Cases considered:
Clarkev Japan Machines (Australia) Pty Ltd [1984] 1 Qd R 404
Warry v PB Pty Ltd [1999] QCA 154

COUNSEL:

Appellant in person
M Rinaudo Lewis for respondent

SOLICITORS:

Appellant self-represented
Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Legal Service (Qld Sth) for respondent

On 12 January 2006 the learned Magistrate at Maryborough imposed a Peace & Good Behaviour Order upon the appellant Cleeve Raymond Smith after a complaint was made under the Peace & Good Behaviour Act 1982 by the respondent, Christian John Woodward. The Order was made after a day-long contested hearing before the Magistrate during which Mr Smith, representing himself, cross examined witnesses called on behalf of the complainant and made lengthy submissions to the Court.

Mr Smith also acted for himself in this Appeal. It has been a lengthy process, complicated by the fact he is an inmate at a prison. The appeal hearing was listed before Noud DCJ on 23 July 2007 but his Honour was, the record suggests, persuaded the appellant should have the opportunity to pursue further evidence, and adjourned the matter to a date to be fixed. It came back before Botting DCJ on 1 October 2007 and his Honour extended time for compliance with previous Orders and listed the appeal for mention on 2 November 2007.

On that day I heard Mr Smith’s application to adduce fresh evidence and reserved my decision. I signified that if leave was refused I would proceed to determine the appeal and, for that purpose, gave each party liberty to deliver a further outline according to a timetable. That subsequently occurred.

Mr Smith’s Notice of Appeal asserts that both the Magistrate’s decisions to make the order, and award costs, were in error. The grounds are as follows:-

The Magistrate erred by failing to consider all the evidence presented or which could have been required to be made available by Ryan the police prosecutor at such Hearing. This file in its entirety would clearly show that Raymond Smith was the victim of the serious assault on 30.06.05. Magistrate also granted costs against the defendant which…

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. Woodward

Details

AGLC: Smith v Woodward [2007] QDC 324
Case: [2007] QDC 324
Decision Date: 7 December 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal was brought by the appellant, Smith, against a decision made by the respondent, Woodward, who acted as a magistrate. The appellant contested the magistrate's ruling, alleging that the magistrate had failed to consider all of the evidence presented during the original trial. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of the relevant state, where the appellant sought to appeal the decision and to adduce fresh evidence that had not been considered in the original trial.

The central legal issues in this case revolved around whether the magistrate had indeed failed to consider all of the evidence and whether the court should exercise its discretion to admit the fresh evidence proposed by the appellant. The appellant argued that the magistrate's failure to consider all of the evidence constituted a significant error that warranted a reconsideration of the case. Additionally, the appellant contended that the fresh evidence they sought to introduce was critical to establishing their case and should be allowed to be considered by the court.

The court found that the magistrate had adequately considered all of the evidence presented during the original trial and therefore dismissed the appellant's application to adduce further evidence. The court exercised its discretion and found that the fresh evidence did not warrant a reconsideration of the case. The court held that the magistrate's decision was correct and did not contain any significant errors that would justify an appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs of and incidental to the application and the appeal, including reserved costs, assessed on the standard basis.

Orders

Orders of the court

1 Appellant’s application to adduce further evidence refused

2 Appeal dismissed

3 Order that the appellant pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the application, and the appeal (including reserved costs) assessed on the standard basis

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.

CITATION:	Smith v Woodward [2007] QDC 324
PARTIES:	CLEEVE RAYMOND SMITH Appellant V CHRISTIAN JOHN WOODWARD Respondent
FILE NO/S:	BD 384/2006
DIVISION:	Appellate
PROCEEDING:	Appeal under s 222, Justices Act 1886
ORIGINATING COURT:	Magistrates Court, Maryborough
DELIVERED ON:	7 December 2007
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	2 November 2007; further written submissions received 16 and 21 November 2007
JUDGE:	Alan Wilson SC, DCJ
ORDER:	1 Appellant’s application to adduce further evidence refused 2 Appeal dismissed 3 Order that the appellant pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the application, and the appeal (including reserved costs) assessed on the standard basis
CATCHWORDS:	APPEAL – APPEAL AGAINST DECISION OF MAGISTRATE – whether Magistrate failed to consider all the evidence APPEAL – LEAVE TO ADDUCE FRESH EVIDENCE – exercise of discretion to admit fresh evidence Justices Act 1886, s 223(2) Evidence Act 1977, ss 21A and 93A Cases considered: Clarkev Japan Machines (Australia) Pty Ltd [1984] 1 Qd R 404 Warry v PB Pty Ltd [1999] QCA 154
COUNSEL:	Appellant in person M Rinaudo Lewis for respondent
SOLICITORS:	Appellant self-represented Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Legal Service (Qld Sth) for respondent