Tasmania v Thompson - [2022] TASSC 52

[2022] TASSC 52

COURT:	SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA
CITATION:	Tasmania v Thompson [2022] TASSC 52
PARTIES:	STATE OF TASMANIA
v
THOMPSON, Jeffrey Ian
FILE NO:	374/2017
DELIVERED ON:	1 February 2021
PUBLISHED ON:	23 August 2022
DELIVERED AT:	Hobart
HEARING DATE:	14 August 2020
JUDGMENT OF:	Brett J
CATCHWORDS:

Criminal Law – Particular offences – Offences relating to the administration of justice – Perverting the course of justice – Whether an objective tendency to pervert the course of justice is an element of the crime

of perverting justice.

Criminal Code 1924 (Tas), s 105.
Johnston v The Queen [2019] NSWCCA 108, followed and explained.
R v Arnol [1980] Tas R 222; Hutt, Hutt and Bell v The Queen [1989] TASSC 27; Clarke v Tasmania [2013]
TASCCA 11, 24 Tas R 384; Pickett v Western Australia [2020] HCA 20, 94 ALJR 629, cited.

Aust Dig Criminal Law [2558]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:

State: D Coates SC, E Bill
Accused: D Edwardson QC, F Merenda

Solicitors:

State: Director of Public Prosecutions
Accused: Munro and Associates

Judgment Number:	[2022] TASSC 52
Number of paragraphs:	16

Serial No 52/2022 File No 374/2017

STATE OF TASMANIA v JEFFREY IAN THOMPSON

REASONS FOR RULING

BRETT J
1 February 2021

1 On 19 March 2020, I overruled an objection by the accused to the prosecution adducing certain pieces of evidence. The objection was based on the asserted application of s 119 of the Evidence Act 2001 to the evidence, a communication and a document, on the basis that the relevant evidence was subject to client legal privilege. A critical premise in the reasoning upon which my ruling was based was my conclusion that the crime of perverting justice, pursuant to s 105 of the Criminal Code does not require proof that the act which is said to constitute the crime has an objective tendency to pervert the course of justice. In arriving at that conclusion, I noted that the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal had come to a similar conclusion in respect of s 319 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), a provision in terms identical to the Tasmanian Code, in the case of Johnston v The Queen [2019] NSWCCA 108.
2 The accused has sought to make further submissions on this question. Mr Merenda, junior counsel for the accused, submitted that the question had not been the subject of argument before me during the earlier hearing, and, accordingly, further submissions should be permitted as a matter of procedural fairness. This contention is not opposed by the prosecution. In any event, I regard an evidentiary ruling during the course of a trial as interlocutory in nature, and subject to review by the trial judge at any time. Of course, as a matter of practice, it would be unusual for a trial judge to alter a ruling in the absence of changed circumstances. However, I accept that the question of the elements of s…

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 Thompson

Details

AGLC: Tasmania v Thompson [2022] TASSC 52
Case: [2022] TASSC 52
Decision Date: 1 February 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved the defendant, Thompson, who was charged with perverting the course of justice. The prosecution alleged that Thompson had attempted to obstruct the proper administration of justice by interfering with a police investigation. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Tasmania. The defendant contested the charge, asserting that his actions did not objectively tend to pervert the course of justice as required by the statutory definition of the offence.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether an objective tendency to pervert the course of justice is an element of the crime. The court needed to determine whether the mere subjective intention to interfere with the administration of justice was sufficient for a conviction, or if there must be an objective tendency for the conduct to have such an effect. The court examined the relevant statutory provisions and case law to ascertain the correct interpretation of the offence.

The court held that an objective tendency to pervert the course of justice is indeed an essential element of the crime. The court found that the subjective intention of the defendant, while relevant, was not sufficient in itself to establish the offence. Instead, the court emphasised that the conduct in question must objectively tend to have the effect of interfering with the administration of justice. In reaching its conclusion, the court relied on previous decisions that underscored the importance of an objective assessment of the conduct. Consequently, the court acquitted Thompson as the prosecution failed to prove the necessary objective tendency.

No further orders were made as the matter was resolved on the basis of the court's findings.

Orders