Tate v Duncan-Strelec
[2015] NSWSC 190
•10 March 2015
Supreme Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Tate v Duncan-Strelec [2015] NSWSC 190 Hearing dates: 10 March 2015 Date of orders: 10 March 2015 Decision date: 10 March 2015 Jurisdiction: Equity Division Before: Bergin CJ in Eq Decision: Ordered to be of good behaviour for 12 months; released on own recognisance
Catchwords: [CONTEMPT] – sentencing in respect of convictions for contempt for conduct outlined in Tate v Duncan-Strelec [2014] NSWSC 1125. Cases Cited: Tate v Duncan-Strelec [2014] NSWSC 1125
Tate v Duncan-Strelec [2014] NSWSC 1135Category: Sentence Parties: Thomas Richard Tate (Plaintiff)
Amanda Duncan-Strelec (Defendant)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
G R Rubagotti (Plaintiff)
A Duncan-Strelec (Defendant) (in person)
Hickey Lawyers (Plaintiff)
File Number(s): 2013/367092 Publication restriction: Nil
Judgment
-
On 20 August 2014 after a four day trial in July 2014, the defendant, Amanda Duncan-Strelec, was found guilty of contempt of Court on Charges 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 of the Statement of Charge filed on 5 December 2013: Tate v Duncan-Strelec [2014] NSWSC 1125 (the Judgment). There were findings of not guilty in respect of Charges 4 and 7 of the Statement of Charge.
-
The conduct, the subject of the convictions, involved publications on particular websites and mirror websites in contempt of Court. Such conduct is outlined in the Judgment which should be read with these remarks.
-
The offending publications have been removed from the net and/or access to them has since been blocked. The contemnor eschews any responsibility for that cessation of publication consistently with her claims at trial that she did not have the technical knowledge or capacity to effect it.
-
I am satisfied that the conduct, the subject of the Charges, arose out of the contemnor’s deep dissatisfaction with the outcome of the litigation against the plaintiff, Thomas Richard Tate, in this Court, the detail in which is referred to in the Judgment. Mr Tate is presently the Mayor of the Gold Coast and the contemnor was previously the Mayor of Albury. Both were exquisitely experienced in the exercise of political power. The complexity of their relationship, their friendship and ultimately the breakdown of that relationship had serious consequences for the contemnor. However when the contemnor found herself on the losing side of the litigation she did not avail herself of the appropriate appellate processes. Rather she decided to conduct herself outside the bounds of the law in the contemptuous conduct detailed in the Judgment.
-
One of the more unfortunate aspects to this case is that when the litigation was concluded and the contemnor decided to commence publication she did not have access to professional legal assistance to guide her on an appropriate path. Rather she was represented for a short while by a lawyer who failed to recognise the ramifications of the publications. After that lawyer’s retainer ceased, the contemnor was further disadvantaged by the so called support that the lawyer proffered to her in what I regarded as quite unsatisfactory conduct, such that I referred him to the legal services Commissioner: Tate v Duncan-Strelec [2014] NSWSC 1135 and orders made 22 August 2014.
-
Although it is not possible to be certain, I think it probable that if the contemnor had received the guidance of a lawyer with integrity she may not have found herself in these difficult circumstances. I say “may not” because there are other aspects to the contemnor’s personality that may well have prevented her from being deflected from the course she decided to take.
-
On 20 August 2014 the contemnor was given the opportunity to make submissions in respect of the orders that should be made, consequent upon the convictions for contempt of Court. Those submissions included:
● That she truly believed she “needed to fight this” because she and her then husband had “lost everything because of what happened” (tr 11).
● She just wanted the proceedings to be “over” (tr 11).
● Although she had been diagnosed with a bipolar disorder she did not want a finding to be made that her conduct was a result of this condition (tr 12).
● Although initially suggesting that she could not guarantee that she would not publish the contemptuous website again, she then indicated that she would give an undertaking to the Court that she would not publish the website again (tr 12).
● The contemnor then resiled from that indication on the basis of her belief in the truth of the publications (tr 12).
-
Reference was made both in the publications on the website and during submissions on 20 August 2014 to the contemnor’s health issues. Having regard to those references I made orders for the filing of medical reports with the Court with the consent of the contemnor: Tate v Duncan-Strelec [2014] NSWSC 1135. The matter was then stood over to 24 September 2014 for further hearing.
-
Between 20 August 2014 and 24 September 2014 the Court received the medical reports from the treating physicians.
-
On 24 September 2014 at a further hearing the medical reports became Exhibit XY (Confidential) and the following orders were made:
This matter was stood over from 22 August for the purposes of considering the matter further, having regard to the findings of contempt against the defendant, Amanda Duncan-Strelec. Having regard to all the circumstances of the case including the medical reports filed with the Court, now Exhibit XY (Confidential) and the contemnor’s submissions made on 20 August 2014, I am satisfied that at this stage the following orders should be made:
In respect of each conviction of contempt of Court I order that Amanda
Duncan-Strelec is prohibited from publishing or causing to be published the website and/the mirror websites the subject of the findings of contempt.
I otherwise defer passing sentence until 10 March 2015. The matter is listed at 10.00am on 10 March 2015.
-
Today the contemnor has appeared once again unrepresented and Ms G R Rubagotti, of counsel, has appeared for the plaintiff.
-
The contemnor is 59 years of age this year. For many years she provided public service to her local community in Albury serving on the Local Council and, as I say, including for a term as Mayor. The plaintiff was previously married and has children. She has expressed concern about the effect that these proceedings may have on her children. However from my observations the contemnor’s insight into the seriousness of these matters and her own predicament has wavered.
-
In weighing in the balance against these serious convictions I take into account the previous good character of the contemnor; her many years of public service to her local community; her obvious family commitment; the devastation she felt at the loss as she referred to it “of everything” by reason of the unsuccessful litigation; the lack of professional guidance in respect of the subject conduct; her indication that she really wants it to be “over”; and her serious health issues referred to in Exhibit XY (Confidential).
-
I make the following Orders:
1. I order you to be of good behaviour for a period of 12 months.
2. You are released on your own recognisance.
3. If at any time you are in breach of this Order you may be called up for sentence.
**********
Decision last updated: 10 March 2015
2
2
0