Teague v SL - [2021] SASC 114

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Magistrates Appeal: Criminal)
TEAGUE v SL
[2021] SASC 114
Judgment of the Honourable Chief Justice Kourakis
28 September 2021
MAGISTRATES - APPEAL AND REVIEW - SOUTH AUSTRALIA - APPEAL TO SUPREME COURT - GROUNDS
Appeal against a decision in the Magistrates Court to impose an Intervention Order to protect the respondent, who was the appellant’s former partner and the mother of the appellant’s twin children.
The primary contentions on appeal were that the Magistrate erred in making findings which were not supported by evidence and failed to provide adequate reasons for findings.
Held, per Kourakis CJ, dismissing the appeal:
1. the Magistrate’s reasons were supported by evidence and were adequately explained.
Intervention Orders (Prevention of Abuse) Act 2009 (SA) ss 6, 23, 26, 28; Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), referred to.
South v The Queen [2007] NSWCCA 117, discussed.

TEAGUE v SL
[2021] SASC 114
Single Judge Appeal

KOURAKIS CJ: This is an appeal brought by Mr Teague against a final intervention order pursuant to s 23 of the Intervention Order (Prevention of Abuse) Act 2009 (SA) (the IO Act) made in the Magistrates Court on 28 April 2021 to protect SL, who was his former partner and the mother of their twin children. The order made was that Mr Teague must not:
·assault, threaten, harass or intimidate SL;
·follow or keep SL under surveillance or approach within 50 metres; or
·contact or communicate with SL.
Exceptions to the order were made to enable arrangements in accordance with the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) for the shared care of their children.
SL applied for the intervention order on 2 December 2019. An interim intervention order was made on 4 December 2019. For reasons which are not explained, the hearing of the confirmation of that order was finally listed in February 2021. An objection to the making of a final intervention order should be heard and determined as soon as reasonably practicable after the intervention order is made. The respondent to the application should not be allowed an extended time in which to consider whether or not to object to its confirmation in the absence of any good reason. It is undesirable that the applicant should be left in a state of uncertainty for a protracted period of time. Moreover, in many cases, there will not be independent witness accounts, or other objective evidence, of the incidents on which the application is based. In many cases it will be a matter of oath against oath. The hearing is best held when memories are fresh.
On the confirmation hearing SL gave evidence. Mr Teague did not. There was independent evidence with respect to some, but not all, of the incidents on which the application was based. The Magistrate found that all, save two, of the incidents occurred as described by SL. As to the first of those two incidents, the Magistrate found that the contact between SL and Mr Teague of which SL complained was accidental,…

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 Teague v SL

Details

AGLC: Teague v SL [2021] SASC 114
Case: [2021] SASC 114
Decision Date: 28 September 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Teague, filed an appeal against a decision made by a Magistrate in South Australia to grant an intervention order against him. The order was made in the context of a dispute over the parenting and handover of children. The appeal was brought to the Supreme Court of South Australia, which reviewed the Magistrate's decision to determine if it was legally sound and supported by evidence.

The court had to decide if the Magistrate correctly exercised their discretion in granting the intervention order. This involved assessing whether the Magistrate considered the correct legal principles, if the evidence was sufficient to support the decision, and if the order was necessary to prevent any further acts of abuse. Additionally, the court examined whether the Magistrate appropriately considered any improper motives that might have influenced the decision.

In reviewing the Magistrate's decision, the Supreme Court found that the Magistrate had addressed the appropriate legal question and was satisfied with the conduct of Mr Teague, which demonstrated his strong resentment towards any oversight or questioning of his parenting. The court was satisfied that the evidence, although weak, did not negate the necessity of the intervention order to prevent further acts of abuse in the context of handovers and the sharing of parental responsibility. Therefore, the court concluded that the Magistrate's decision was legally sound, adequately supported by evidence, and appropriately made. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

The Supreme Court upheld the Magistrate's decision and dismissed the appeal, affirming that the intervention order was appropriately granted based on the evidence presented. The court found that the Magistrate's reasons were adequately explained and supported by the evidence, and therefore, the appeal was unsuccessful.

Orders

Orders of the court

Held, per Kourakis CJ, dismissing the appeal:

1. the Magistrate’s reasons were supported by evidence and were adequately explained.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

The above paragraphs show that the Magistrate addressed the right question and was satisfied by the course of the conduct which disclosed that Mr Teague strongly resented any oversight, supervision or questioning of his parenting of the children. He was satisfied that the making of an intervention order was necessary to prevent any further acts of abuse occurring in the context of handovers and the sharing of parental responsibility generally. Once that was accepted, the evidence, weak as it was, of an improper motive, was not sufficient to refrain from finding that the making of the order was appropriate. Conclusion I dismiss the appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.