Tasmania v Crane - [2006] TASSC 82

[2006] TASSC 82

CITATION: Tasmania v Crane [2006] TASSC 82

PARTIES:  TASMANIA, STATE OF
  v
  CRANE, Stephen Charles

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA
JURISDICTION:  ORIGINAL
FILE NO/S:  196/2005
DELIVERED ON:  18 October 2006
DELIVERED AT:  Launceston
HEARING DATE:  16 October 2006
JUDGMENT OF:  Slicer J

CATCHWORDS:

Criminal Law – Jurisdiction, practice and procedure – Information, indictment or presentment – Motion to quash – Time for motion.
Criminal Code (Tas), ss105, 352.
R v Collins B55/1993; R v Rowell [1978] 1 All ER 665, considered.
Aust Dig Criminal Law [729]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
           State:  P Sherriff
           Accused:  G A Richardson
Solicitors:
           State:  Director of Public Prosecutions
           Accused:  G A Richardson

Judgment Number: [2006] TASSC 82
Number of paragraphs: 13

Serial No 82/2006
File No 196/2005

STATE OF TASMANIA v STEPHEN CHARLES CRANE

REASONS FOR RULING SLICER J

18 October 2006

The accused has, before plea, moved to quash the indictment in accordance with the Criminal Code, s352.

The indictment states:

"stephen charles crane at Deviot, in Tasmania, on or about the 27^th day of October, 2003 with intent to obstruct, pervert or defeat the due course of justice falsely pretended to transport inspector Cecil George Youl that he did not have a weighbridge docket and subsequently instigated Thomas Third to falsify a weighbridge docket indicating that the vehicle he had been driving, which vehicle had been involved in an accident, was not loaded beyond its permissible load limit."

The particulars specify two distinct acts involving different persons and forms of obstruction or perversion of justice. The first act is said to be the making of a statement or use of words made to a transport inspector which deny the possession of a weighbridge docket. The second is that at a subsequent time Mr Crane instigated another person to falsify a weighbridge docket. From the indictment, including the particulars, the crime or crimes can be identified as:

(1)the accused was the driver of a motor vehicle;
(2)the vehicle was involved in an accident while the accused was driving;
(3)the vehicle was loaded beyond its "permissible load limit";
(4)a transport inspector was engaged in the investigation of the accident "in due course of justice";
(5)the accused, with intent to obstruct, pervert or defeat the due course of justice, falsely stated to the investigator that he, the driver, did not have a "weighbridge docket", knowing such not to be the case;
(6)at a time subsequent to that false statement, the accused instigated another to falsify a weighbridge docket.

The Code, s105, states:

"105 ¾ Perverting justice
Any person who does any act or makes any omission with intent in any way whatever to obstruct, prevent, pervert, or defeat the due course of justice or the administration of the law, is guilty of a crime.
Charge:
Perverting justice."

It provides for an "act or omission". It differs in wording from the equivalent provisions in the Criminal Code (Qld), ss140 and 148, which respectively refer to any person who:

"attempts, in any…

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 Tasmania v Crane

Details

AGLC: Tasmania v Crane [2006] TASSC 82
Case: [2006] TASSC 82
Decision Date: 18 October 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Tasmania v Crane was heard in the Supreme Court of Tasmania, where the state sought to challenge a motion to quash brought by the defendant, Crane. The dispute centred on the timeliness of Crane's motion to quash an information, which was a procedural matter raising questions about the appropriate period within which such a motion should be lodged.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the defendant's motion to quash the information was timely. Specifically, the court had to determine the appropriate time limit for such a motion and whether it had been correctly applied in this instance. The resolution of this matter was crucial, as it would impact the defendant's right to challenge the validity of the information before the trial proceeded further.

In delivering the judgment, the court considered the statutory provisions governing the timing of motions to quash and the relevant case law. The court concluded that the motion was indeed timely, as it had been lodged within the prescribed period as per the statutory guidelines and judicial interpretations. Consequently, the court allowed the motion to quash the information, thereby ensuring that the defendant's procedural rights were upheld.

The court's decision was definitive, and as a result, the information against the defendant was quashed. This outcome meant that the trial could not proceed until the information was properly refiled, ensuring that procedural fairness was maintained throughout the legal process.

Orders