Tasmania v Davey - [2018] TASSC 14

[2018] TASSC 14

COURT: SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA

CITATION: Tasmania v Davey [2018] TASSC 14

PARTIES:  STATE OF TASMANIA
  v
  DAVEY, Matthew John
  DAVEY, Dillon Anthony
  DALE, Scott Raymond

FILE NO:  146/2015
DELIVERED ON:  28 March 2018
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATES:  13–16, 18-23, 26-28 March 2018
JUDGMENT OF:  Blow CJ

CATCHWORDS:

Criminal Law – Procedure – Adjournment, stay of proceedings or order restraining proceedings – Stay of proceedings – Abuse of process – In general – Whether power to restrict scope of Crown case instead of fully staying proceedings.

Maxwell v The Queen (1996) 184 CLR 501; Magaming v The Queen [2013] HCA 40, 252 CLR 381, referred to.
Aust Dig Criminal Law [3054]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             State:  D G Coates SC, E Avery
             Accused M Davey:  F Cangelosi
             Accused D Davey:  J Sawyer
             Accused S Dale  K Baumeler
Solicitors:
             State:  Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment Number: [2018] TASSC 14
Number of paragraphs: 26

Serial No 14/2018
File No 146/2015

STATE OF TASMANIA v MATTHEW JOHN DAVEY,
DILLON ANTHONY DAVEY and SCOTT RAYMOND DALE

REASONS FOR RULING BLOW CJ

28 March 2018

These are my reasons for a ruling that I gave on 13 March 2018, the first day of this trial. That ruling concerned a ruling given by Estcourt J on 18 September 2017. By count 1 on the current indictment, the three accused are jointly charged with committing an unlawful act intended to cause bodily harm, contrary to s 170 of the Criminal Code. I rejected a submission to the effect that, because of the ruling on 18 September 2017, I should not permit the Crown, in relation to count 1, to rely on any basis of criminal responsibility not based on one or more of the three accused men doing the physical act or acts that constituted the crime charged. The Crown wished to rely on physical acts performed by another assailant, Michelle Lee Arnott.
The background can be summarised as follows:
·     The three accused, Matthew John Davey, Dillon Anthony Davey and Scott Raymond Dale, were jointly charged with Ms Arnott, on an indictment dated 8 September 2016 with one count of committing an unlawful act intended to cause bodily harm, contrary to s 170, and one count of assault. Both crimes were alleged to have been committed on 7 and 8 May 2015.
·     A trial of the four accused was commenced by Estcourt J. On 4 September 2017, each accused pleaded not guilty to each charge. His Honour dealt with a number of preliminary matters. The trial did not reach the stage where a jury was empanelled.
·     On 8 September 2017, his Honour ordered that Matthew Davey and Scott Dale each be tried separately.
·     On 11 September 2017, at the request of Ms Arnott, the indictment was put to her again. On the s 170 charge, she pleaded not guilty to the crime charged, but guilty to assault. The Crown…

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 Davey

Details

AGLC: Tasmania v Davey [2018] TASSC 14
Case: [2018] TASSC 14
Decision Date: 28 March 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the recent case of Tasmania v Davey, the defendant, Davey, was charged with multiple counts of domestic violence offences. The Tasmanian Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether the court had the authority to restrict the scope of the Crown's case rather than fully staying the proceedings due to an alleged abuse of process by the Crown. Davey's defence counsel argued that the Crown's conduct amounted to an abuse of process, warranting either a stay of proceedings or a restriction on the scope of the Crown's case. The Crown, on the other hand, contended that the court's power to control proceedings did not extend to restricting the scope of the case in this manner.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the court possessed the authority to limit the scope of the Crown's case in response to an alleged abuse of process, as opposed to fully staying the proceedings. This question required the court to examine the principles and precedents governing the court's power to control proceedings in cases of alleged abuse. The court had to determine the appropriate balance between ensuring a fair trial and addressing instances of alleged abuse of process by the Crown.

In delivering the judgment, the court held that while it possessed the power to control proceedings in cases of alleged abuse of process, this did not extend to restricting the scope of the Crown's case. The court found that such a restriction would effectively allow the court to substitute its judgment for that of the Crown in determining the scope of the case. Instead, the court's appropriate response to an abuse of process was to stay the proceedings entirely. The court emphasised that this decision was not intended to undermine its power to control proceedings but rather to ensure that the principles of fairness and the separation of powers were upheld. The court's decision in this case reinforces the importance of maintaining a clear distinction between the roles of the court and the Crown in the administration of justice.

The final orders of the court were that the proceedings against Davey would be stayed in their entirety due to the Crown's alleged abuse of process. This decision highlights the court's commitment to upholding the principles of fairness and the separation of powers in the administration of justice.

Orders