Stewart v Grigsby - [2025] TASSC 38

[2025] TASSC 38

COURT:	SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA
CITATION:	Stewart v Grigsby [2025] TASSC 38
PARTIES:	STEWART, Errol Clayton
STEWART FAMILY TASMANIAN INVESTMENTS
PTY LTD
v
GRIGSBY, Kelly (HOBART CITY COUNCIL)
FILE NO:	496/2024
DELIVERED ON:	8 August 2025
DELIVERED AT:	Hobart
HEARING DATE:	12 June 2025
JUDGMENT OF:	Shanahan CJ
CATCHWORDS:

Magistrates – Appeal and review – Tasmania – Motion to review – Other matters – Interlocutory application in motion to review for preliminary partial remittal to Magistrate's Court for further and better reasons as to the criminal liability of defendants found guilty by magistrate of contravening s 63(3) of the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 (Tas) – Magistrate's reasons did not identify whether first defendant actually committed, instigated, aided, or abetted the offences – Magistrate's reasons inadequate due to failure to identify the basis on which defendants criminally responsible – Interlocutory application allowed.

Aust Dig Magistrates [1349]

Legislation:
Criminal Code, s 330
Justices Act 1959, ss 3, 63, 73, 110(2A)

Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993, ss 12, 63(3)

Cases cited:
Jones v Bonde [2022] TASSC 19; Robinson v Chatters [2010] TASSC 66, applied.
Phillips v Arnold [2009] TASSC 43; Jotheeswaran v Barnes [2019] TASSC 42, considered.

Statutes – Acts of Parliament – Statutory powers and duties – Construction – Conferral and extent of power – Whether power of Supreme Court to remit a magistrate's decision for further and better reasons under s 110(2A) of Justices Act 1959 extends to interlocutory proceedings – Absence of express reference under s 109 to exercise of power to remit at an interlocutory stage of proceedings under s 107 of Justices Act 1959 does not preclude it – Court has broad discretion to exercise power under s 110(2A) conditioned by factors including the efficacy of the remittal, the interests of justice, and the principles of case management.

Aust Dig Statutes [1164]
Legislation:
Interpretation Act 1931, s 46
Magistrates Court Act 1987, s 31(2)

Justices Act 1959, ss 107, 108, 109, 110(2A), 110(2B)

Cases cited:
Bonde v Bluett [2019] TASSC 14; Bonde v Maney [2018] TASSC 23; Szabo v Moore (2018) 29 Tas R 397,
considered.

Cowen v Estcourt [1976] Tas SR 113; R v Hall [1988] Tas R 74, referred to.

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:

Appellants: A Spence SC
Respondent: C Scott

Solicitors:

Appellants: Page Seager
Respondent: Simmons Wolfhagen

Judgment Number:	[2025] TASSC 38
Number of paragraphs:	76

Serial No 38/2025 File No 496/2024

ERROL CLAYTON STEWART and STEWART FAMILY TASMANIAN

INVESTMENTS PTY LTD v KELLY GRIGSBY (HOBART CITY COUNCIL)

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT	SHANAHAN CJ 8 August 2025
The interlocutory application

1 On 12 June 2025 I heard the respondent Council's interlocutory application for a preliminary partial remittal in this application for review pursuant to s 107 of the Justices Act 1959 ("Justices Act") by Mr Errol Clayton Stewart ("Mr Stewart") and Stewart Family Tasmanian Investments Pty Ltd ("the company").
2 The respondent seeks…

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 Stewart v Grigsby

Details

AGLC: Stewart v Grigsby [2025] TASSC 38
Case: [2025] TASSC 38
Decision Date: 8 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Stewart v Grigsby involved an appeal and review in the Tasmanian Magistrates Court, where the defendants contested their convictions under section 63(3) of the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993. The primary issue was whether the magistrate's decision to convict the defendants was legally sound, particularly in identifying the basis for their criminal responsibility. The defendants argued that the magistrate's reasons were inadequate as they did not specify whether the first defendant had actually committed, instigated, aided, or abetted the offences. This lack of clarity led to a motion to review the decision, seeking a remittal to the Magistrates Court for further clarification on the defendants' criminal liability.

The court considered whether the magistrate's reasons were sufficient to support the convictions. The magistrate's decision did not detail the specific role each defendant played in the alleged offences, which is crucial for establishing criminal responsibility under the statute. The court held that the magistrate's reasons were inadequate because they failed to identify the basis for holding the defendants criminally liable. This failure meant the defendants could not effectively appeal their convictions, as the reasons did not provide a clear understanding of how they were found guilty.

As a result, the court allowed the interlocutory application, granting a preliminary partial remittal to the Magistrates Court. This remittal required the court to provide further and better reasons to clarify the basis for the defendants' criminal liability. The decision underscored the necessity for magistrates to clearly articulate the grounds for a conviction, especially in complex cases involving multiple defendants. This ruling ensures that any appeal against a conviction is not hampered by insufficient reasoning, thereby upholding the principles of fairness and transparency in the judicial process.

The court's final order was to remit the case back to the Magistrates Court for the purpose of providing further and better reasons for the convictions. This order aimed to rectify the deficiencies in the original decision and ensure that the defendants' rights to a fair trial were protected. The decision highlights the importance of detailed and comprehensive judicial reasoning in criminal cases.

Orders