Tatnell v Tasmania - [2020] TASCCA 13

[2020] TASCCA 13

COURT: SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA (COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL)

CITATION: Tatnell v Tasmania [2020] TASCCA 13

PARTIES:  TATNELL, Todd Andrew
  v
  STATE OF TASMANIA

FILE NO:  943/2020
DELIVERED ON:  7 August 2020
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATE:  3 June 2020
JUDGMENT OF:  Blow CJ, Pearce and Brett JJ

CATCHWORDS:

Criminal Law – Appeal and new trial – Verdict unreasonable or insupportable having regard to evidence – Appeal dismissed – Assault on wife by husband – Acquittals on two of three counts – Open to jury to accept evidence of complainant on one count despite inconsistencies.

M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; Pell v The Queen [2020] HCA 12, 94 ALJR 394; Paite v Tasmania [2019] TASCCA 5, 30 Tas R 73; Finnegan v Tasmania [2020] TASCCA 5; Anderson v Tasmania [2020] TASCCA 11, referred to
Aust Dig Criminal Law [3476]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Appellant:  G Stevens
             Respondent:  E Avery
Solicitors:
             Appellant:  Murdoch Clarke
             Respondent:  Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment Number: [2020] TASCCA 13
Number of paragraphs: 35

Serial No 13/2020
File No 943/2020

TODD ANDREW TATNELL v STATE OF TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

BLOW CJ
PEARCE J
BRETT J
7 August 2020

Order of the Court (3 June 2020)

Appeal dismissed.

Serial No 13/2020
File No 943/2020

TODD ANDREW TATNELL v STATE OF TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

BLOW CJ
7 August 2020

In February of this year the appellant, Todd Tatnell, was tried before Estcourt J on three counts of assault. The jury, by majority, found him guilty on count 1, but unanimously found him not guilty on the other counts. He appealed from his conviction on the first count, contending that the guilty verdict was "unsafe and unsatisfactory". His appeal was heard by this Court on 3 June 2020. At the conclusion of that hearing, the Court unanimously dismissed the appeal, reserving its reasons for publication at a later date. I joined in the order dismissing the appeal for the same reasons as those published by Brett J today.

File No 943/2020

TODD ANDREW TATNELL v STATE OF TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

PEARCE J
7 August 2020

I agree with Brett J. His Honour's reasons reflect the reasons for which I joined in an order dismissing the appeal.

File No 943/2020

TODD ANDREW TATNELL v STATE OF TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

BRETT J
7 August 2020

The appellant was charged with three counts of assault. It was alleged that these crimes had been committed against his wife at their family home during the course of an argument between them on 7 October 2018. The jury found the appellant guilty of the first count, but not guilty of the other counts. The trial judge, Estcourt J, imposed a wholly suspended sentence of 12 months' imprisonment and made a community correction order.
The appellant appealed against his…

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 Tatnell v Tasmania

Details

AGLC: Tatnell v Tasmania [2020] TASCCA 13
Case: [2020] TASCCA 13
Decision Date: 7 August 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Tatnell v Tasmania concerned an appeal against a criminal conviction. The appellant, Tatnell, was charged with three counts of assault occasioning actual bodily harm against his wife. The jury acquitted him on two of the counts but convicted him on the third. Tatnell appealed his conviction to the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Tasmania.

The central legal issue before the Full Court was whether the jury's verdict on the remaining count was unreasonable or insupportable having regard to the evidence presented at trial. This required the Court to consider the evidence in its entirety and determine if no reasonable jury, properly instructed, could have reached the conclusion of guilt on that specific charge.

The Full Court dismissed the appeal, finding that it was open to the jury to accept the evidence of the complainant regarding the assault on the third count, notwithstanding certain inconsistencies in her testimony. The Court reasoned that juries are entitled to weigh evidence, assess credibility, and accept parts of a witness's account while rejecting others. The presence of inconsistencies did not, in this instance, render the verdict on the third count legally unreasonable or insupportable.

Orders