Tate v Duncan-Strelec - [2015] NSWSC 190

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 1135
Category: Sentence
Parties: Thomas Richard Tate (Plaintiff)
Amanda Duncan-Strelec (Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
G R Rubagotti (Plaintiff)
A Duncan-Strelec (Defendant) (in person)
Solicitors:
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…

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 Tate v Duncan-Strelec

Details

AGLC: Tate v Duncan-Strelec [2015] NSWSC 190
Case: [2015] NSWSC 190
Decision Date: 10 March 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved the sentencing of the defendants, Tate and Duncan-Strelec, for contempt of court. The dispute arose from conduct that was considered to be in breach of a court order, specifically the disclosure of a recording of a confidential meeting between a party and their legal representative. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The primary focus of the court was to determine the appropriate sentence for the defendants' contempt of court, given the gravity of their actions and the potential impact on the administration of justice.

The legal issues before the court included the extent of the contempt, the seriousness of the breach, and the appropriate punishment to impose. The court had to consider the precedent set by previous cases and the principles governing contempt of court, including the need to maintain public confidence in the legal system and the balance between the rights of the parties and the administration of justice. The court also had to weigh the mitigating factors presented by the defendants against the severity of their actions.

In delivering the judgment, the court found that the defendants' conduct was indeed contemptible and warranted a significant penalty. The court emphasised the importance of protecting the confidentiality of legal communications and the potential harm caused by the breach. After considering the aggravating and mitigating factors, the court imposed a sentence that included a substantial fine and a period of imprisonment for each defendant. The final orders of the court reflected the severity of the contempt and the need to uphold the integrity of the legal process.

Orders