TT Line Company Pty Ltd v Burrows - [2021] TASFC 3

[2021] TASFC 3

COURT:	SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA (FULL COURT)
CITATION:	TT Line Company Pty Ltd v Burrows [2021] TASFC 3
PARTIES:	TT LINE COMPANY PTY LTD
v
BURROWS, Rae
FILE NO:	2855/2020
JUDGMENT
APPEALED FROM:	TT-Line Company Pty Ltd v Burrows [2020] TASSC 52
DELIVERED ON:	22 March 2021
DELIVERED AT:	Hobart
HEARING DATE:	5 March 2021
JUDGMENT OF:	Martin AJ, Marshall AJ, Porter AJ
CATCHWORDS:

Magistrates – Appeal and review – Tasmania – Motion to review – When remedy available – Jurisdiction – Motion to review an order of a magistrate available to person aggrieved by an order – Definition of "order" included determination and adjudication – Magistrate ruled that no duplicity in a charge on complaint – Ruling amenable to motion to review.

Justices Act 1959 (Tas), ss 30, 31, 107, 116.
Wilson v McCormack [1968] Tas R 55 applied.
Roadside Products Pty Ltd v Cocker [2018] TASSC 6, considered.
Aust Dig Magistrates [1345]

Criminal law – Procedure – Information, indictment or presentment – Averments – Uncertainty, duplicity and ambiguity – Duplicity – Offence to use a method of management of animals which is reasonably likely to result in unreasonable and unjustifiable pain or suffering – Appellant charged with offence relating to transport of horses in trucks on Bass Strait ferry – Where particulars alleged deficiencies in inspection

of horses before and during voyage and failures in relation to the manner, positioning or circumstances
of transportation – Where further particulars alleged non-compliance with regulations – Essence of offence was using a method of management reasonably likely to bring about the prohibited result – Method of management almost inevitably comprised of a number of aspects – Charge related to a single
course of conduct and not duplicitous.

Animal Welfare Act 1993 (Tas), s 7.
Hannes v Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) (No 2) [2006] NSWCCA 373, 205 FLR 217; Walsh v Tattersall
(1996) 188 CLR 77, applied.
Aust Dig Criminal Law [3066]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:

Appellant: D Neal SC, R Taylor, K Grinberg
Respondent: S Nicholson, E Stone

Solicitors:

Appellant: HFW Australia
Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment Number:	[2021] TASFC 3
Number of paragraphs:	126

Serial No 3/2021

File No 2855/2020

TT-LINE COMPANY PTY LTD v RAE BURROWS

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT	FULL COURT MARTIN AJ MARSHALL AJ PORTER AJ 22 March 2021
Order of the Court:
Appeal dismissed.
Serial No 3/2021 File No 2855/2020

TT-LINE COMPANY PTY LTD v RAE BURROWS

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT	FULL COURT MARTIN AJ 22 March 2021
Introduction

1 The appellant is charged on complaint with breaches of the Animal Welfare Act 1993 (the Act). The charges relate to the transport across Bass Strait of a number of horses.
2 Before the magistrate, Ms L Topfer, the appellant submitted that count 1 of the complaint was bad for duplicity. The learned magistrate rejected that submission and the appellant filed a motion for review of that determination. Blow CJ dismissed the motion and…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read TT Line Company Pty Ltd v Burrows and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2021] TASFC 3
Decision Date: 22 March 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

TT Line Company Pty Ltd (the applicant) sought a review of a ruling made by a magistrate in Tasmania. The dispute concerned a criminal complaint where the applicant argued that the charge laid against it was duplicitous. The applicant sought to challenge the magistrate's determination that the charge was not duplicitous.

The central legal issue before the Supreme Court of Tasmania was whether the magistrate's ruling, that there was no duplicity in the charge, constituted an "order" within the meaning of the relevant legislation, thereby making it amenable to a motion to review. The applicant contended that such a ruling was a final determination on a significant aspect of the proceedings and thus should be reviewable.

The Court held that the definition of "order" in the relevant legislation was broad enough to encompass a determination or adjudication made by a magistrate during the course of proceedings. The magistrate's ruling on the duplicity of the charge was a definitive adjudication on a substantive legal question that affected the applicant's rights and the conduct of the trial. Therefore, the ruling was an "order" for the purposes of a motion to review. The Court found that the applicant was a person aggrieved by this order and that the motion to review was therefore available.

Orders