Tregaskis-Jago v Jones - [2023] TASSC 45

[2023] TASSC 45

COURT:	SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA
CITATION:	Tregaskis-Jago v Jones [2023] TASSC 45
PARTIES:	TREGASKIS-JAGO, George Maxwell
v
JONES, Jason
FILE NO:	467/2022
DELIVERED ON:	17 November 2023
DELIVERED AT:	Hobart
HEARING DATE:	14 November 2023
JUDGMENT OF:	Pearce J
CATCHWORDS:

Magistrates – Appeal and review – Tasmania – Motion to review – Other matters – Appeal against finding of guilt on using a listening device to listen to a private conversation – Finding of guilt reasonably open to the magistrate.

Listening Devices Act 1991
Phillips v Arnold [2009] TASSC 43, 19 Tas R 21, applied.

Aust Dig Magistrates [1349]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:

Appellant: F Cangelosi
Respondent: E Bill

Solicitors:

Appellant: The Cangelosi Firm
Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment Number:	[2023] TASSC 45
Number of paragraphs:	26

Serial No 45/2023 File No 467/2022

GEORGE MAXWELL TREGASKIS-JAGO v SENIOR SERGEANT JASON JONES

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT PEARCE J
17 November 2023

1 On 7 February 2022 the applicant was found guilty by a magistrate, Mr S Brown, of one count of using a listening device to listen to a private conversation contrary to the Listening Devices Act 1991, s 5(1)(a). His Honour convicted the applicant and imposed a fine of $1,500. The respondent is the police officer who brought the complaint against the applicant. The applicant moves to review the conviction on two grounds:

(a) it was not reasonably open in all the circumstances of the case for the learned magistrate to find the complaint proved against the applicant;
(b) it was not reasonably open in all the circumstances of the case for the learned magistrate to find that the applicant had listened to a private conversation.

2 For the following reasons neither ground is made out and the motion must be dismissed.
3 The Act, by its Long Title, is an "Act to regulate the use of certain devices capable of being used for listening to private conversations." Section 5 is entitled "Prohibition on use of listening devices" and provides, by subs (1):

"5 (1) A person shall not use, or cause or permit to be used, a listening device –

(a) to record or listen to a private conversation to which the person is not a party; or
(b) to record a private conversation to which the person is a party."

4 The complaint against the applicant alleged that on 24 August 2020, in Launceston, he used a listening device to listen to a private conversation to which he was not a party. It was not alleged that the applicant recorded any conversation. The hearing of the complaint was conducted before the learned magistrate on 24 January 2022. The prosecution evidence consisted of a number of agreed facts, oral testimony of one police officer, and an audio visual recording of a police interview with the applicant conducted on 2 September 2020. The applicant gave evidence in his defence.
5 The relevant conversation took place at the Launceston police station…

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 Tregaskis-Jago v Jones

Details

AGLC: Tregaskis-Jago v Jones [2023] TASSC 45
Case: [2023] TASSC 45
Decision Date: 17 November 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Tregaskis-Jago v Jones, the appellant sought a review of a finding of guilt by the Magistrates Court of Tasmania, asserting that the conviction was not reasonably open on the evidence. The dispute centred on allegations that the appellant used a listening device to eavesdrop on a private conversation. The respondent defended the magistrate's decision, maintaining that the evidence was sufficient to support the finding of guilt.

The primary legal issue the court had to determine was whether the magistrate's finding of guilt was reasonably open given the evidence presented. The court had to assess whether the evidence was sufficient to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant used a listening device for the purpose of eavesdropping on a private conversation. The appellant argued that the evidence was insufficient and that alternative explanations were possible, while the respondent contended that the evidence was clear and the finding was justified.

The court concluded that the evidence provided was sufficient to support the magistrate's finding of guilt. It found that the magistrate had considered all the relevant evidence and was entitled to draw the inference that the appellant used a listening device to eavesdrop. The court determined that the finding of guilt was reasonably open and thus upheld the original decision. The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction was affirmed.

No further orders were made by the court, and the conviction of the appellant stood as decided by the Magistrates Court of Tasmania.

Orders