Webster v White (No 2)

In the Supreme Court of Tasmania, the case of Webster v White (No 2) involved the applicant, Darren John Webster, seeking to review his convictions and sentences imposed by a magistrate. The applicant argued that he was incompetently advised by his legal representatives, which led to an important witness not being called at the original hearing. The court was required to determine whether the applicant was entitled to a hearing de novo and if the interests of justice required such a rehearing.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicant, Darren John Webster, was entitled to a hearing de novo under section 111 of the Justices Act 1959. The applicant argued that he was deprived of a fair trial due to incompetent legal advice that led to an important witness, Steven Cole, not being called. The court had to consider whether the failure to call this witness, and the resulting advice, warranted a rehearing of the complaint.

Zeeman J held that the applicant was not entitled to a rehearing de novo based on the mere fact that a witness was not called, as this did not constitute a miscarriage of justice. However, the court found that the incompetent advice given to the applicant about calling the witness Steven Cole constituted a significant error in the legal process. The court concluded that the interests of justice did require a rehearing de novo due to the erroneous advice, which potentially led to a grave injustice. The court quashed the orders of conviction and sentence and ordered that the complaint be reheard by another magistrate.

The final orders made by the court were that the orders of conviction and sentence made against the applicant be quashed and that the complaint be reheard de novo by another magistrate sitting at Launceston. The court directed that this rehearing should occur on a date to be fixed by the Clerk of Petty Sessions at Launceston.