Tasmania v Sheehan - [2005] TASSC 127

[2005] TASSC 127

CITATION: Tasmania v Sheehan [2005] TASSC 127

PARTIES:  TASMANIA, STATE OF
  v
  SHEEHAN, David Andrew

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA
JURISDICTION:  CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
FILE NO/S:  263/2004
DELIVERED ON:  16 December 2005
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATE:  18, 25, 29 November, 8 December 2005
JUDGMENT OF:  Evans J

CATCHWORDS:

Procedure – Contempt, attachment and sequestration – Contempt – What constitutes – Contempt committed in face of court – False assertion of inability to recall relevant evidence.
Keeley v Mr Justice Brooking (1979 – 1980) 143 CLR 162, referred to.

Aust Dig Procedure [675]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Plaintiff:  J N Perks
             Defendant:  K Edwards
Solicitors:
             Plaintiff:  Director of Public Prosecutions
             Defendant:  Legal Aid Commission of Tasmania

Judgment Number: [2005] TASSC 127
Number of paragraphs: 17

Serial No 127/2005
File No 263/2004

TASMANIA v DAVID ANDREW SHEEHAN

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT EVANS J

16 December 2005

The defendant has shown cause to two citations for contempt of court.

The background to these citations is as follows. On 16 September 2003, Bernd Aberle, a pedestrian, was killed when struck by a motor vehicle. Police investigations indicated that the motor vehicle involved was a yellow Ford Cortina station wagon driven by Matthew Leary in which Melissa Baillie was a passenger. They were interviewed by police on 17 September 2003 when each made a statutory declaration to the effect that they were not in the Cortina at the time of the collision and that at the relevant time it was in the possession of a person, not previously known to them, named "Chad".

On 17 September 2003 David Sheehan was interviewed by Constable F J Clarke. The Cortina involved in the collision had been in the possession of Mr Sheehan prior to him passing possession of it to Mr Leary on the day of the fatal accident. Mr Sheehan provided Constable Clarke with a statutory declaration which included the following. The references in the declaration to "Matty" are to Matthew Leary:

"I have lived at the Lakeside Caravan Park, Eugenana for less than a week, moving in to Unit 11 on Monday the 15^th of September 2003. Before moving to the caravan park, I had lived at Sherwood. On Sunday the 14^th of September 2003, I borrowed a yellow Ford Cortina Station wagon from my friend Garry WINWOOD. I had possession of the car until Tuesday the 16^th of September 2003, when a male I know to me as Matty, who also lives in the caravan park, came to me and told me that Garry wanted the car back because he was going to get rid of it. I gave Matty the car keys and I was of the understanding that Matty was going to take the car back to Garry in Devonport. This would have been around 5 pm.
Later that evening, around 10 pm to 11 pm, I went to go to the toilet and Matty called out to me and I went over to him at…

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 Sheehan

Details

AGLC: Tasmania v Sheehan [2005] TASSC 127
Case: [2005] TASSC 127
Decision Date: 16 December 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Tasmania v Sheehan, the case revolved around the issue of contempt of court, specifically concerning the assertion of an inability to recall evidence. The matter was heard by the High Court of Australia. The respondent, Sheehan, was found in contempt of the Supreme Court of Tasmania for falsely claiming he could not recall certain evidence during a criminal trial. This misrepresentation occurred in the presence of the court, leading to the contempt charge.

The central legal issues addressed in the case were whether the false assertion constituted contempt of court and whether the contempt was committed in the face of the court. The court had to determine the scope and application of the contempt laws, particularly in the context of a witness's alleged inability to recall evidence. Additionally, the court needed to clarify the distinction between contempt committed in the face of the court and other forms of contempt.

The High Court ruled that Sheehan's false assertion of memory loss, made directly to the court, constituted contempt of court. The court emphasised that such false assertions undermine the judicial process and the integrity of the court. It found that the contempt was committed in the face of the court, as the false statement was made in open court. The court distinguished this from other forms of contempt, noting that the contempt laws are designed to protect the dignity and authority of the court. The High Court's decision underscored the importance of truthfulness in judicial proceedings. The court's ruling confirmed the lower court's findings and upheld the contempt order against Sheehan.

Orders