Supreme Court
Smith v Boarder [2022] TASSC 30 (16 May 2022) – Tasmanian Supreme Court
State of Tasmania v Matthew John Davey (Sentence) [2021] TASSC unreported (10 December 2021) – Tasmanian Supreme Court
State of Tasmania v Levi Joseph David Hall (Sentence) [2021] TASSC unreported (27 September 2021) – Tasmanian Supreme Court
State of Tasmania v ARJ (Sentence) [2021] TASSC unreported (11 March 2021) – Tasmanian Supreme Court
Hopkinson v Wilkie [2020] TASSC 32 (3 July 2020) – Tasmanian Supreme Court
Baker v Barratt [2019] TASSC 28 (4 July 2019) – Tasmanian Supreme Court
Irons v Moore [2019] TASSC 22 (22 May 2019) – Tasmanian Supreme Court
Cannell v G; G v Cannell [2018] TASSC 55 (1 November 2018) – Tasmanian Supreme Court
Harrison v Moore [2018] TASSC 53 (19 October 2018) – Tasmanian Supreme Court
Bonde v Maney [2018] TASSC 23 (17 May 2018) – Tasmanian Supreme Court
Moore v Rittman [2018] TASSC 5 (13 February 2018) – Tasmanian Supreme Court
Barnes v Crossin [2017] TASSC 61 (12 October 2017) – Tasmanian Supreme Court
Kirkwood v Thomas [2017] TASSC 56 (15 September 2017) – Tasmanian Supreme Court
Mayne v Tasmania [2017] TASSC 38 (29 June 2017) – Tasmanian Supreme Court
Parker v Hall [2015] TASSC 60 (10 December 2015) – Tasmanian Supreme Court
Lacroix v Lacroix [2015] TASSC 42 (3 September 2015) – Tasmanian Supreme Court
Young v Wilson [2015] TASSC 16 (28 April 2015) – Tasmanian Supreme Court
Higgins v McCulloch [2013] TASSC 49 (11 September 2013) – Tasmanian Supreme Court
Tasmania v Finnegan (No 2) [2012] TASSC 1 (19 January 2012) – Tasmanian Supreme Court
James v Tasmania [2010] TASSC 50 (11 November 2010) – Tasmanian Supreme Court
Beechey v McDonald [2010] TASSC 47 (25 October 2010) – Tasmanian Supreme Court
Maingay v Seabourne [2009] TASSC 67 (19 August 2009) – Tasmanian Supreme Court
Bradshaw v Tasmania [2009] TASSC 22 (9 April 2009) – Tasmanian Supreme Court
Allen v Kerr [2009] TASSC 10 (25 February 2009) – Tasmanian Supreme Court
Tasmania v R D P [2009] TASSC 72 (25 February 2009) – Tasmanian Supreme Court
Director of Public Prosecutions v P [2007] TASSC 51 (26 June 2007) – Tasmanian Supreme Court
Lambie v State of Tasmania [2007] TASSC 10 (7 March 2007) – Tasmanian Supreme Court
Remess v Rabe [2006] TASSC 105 (4 December 2006) – Tasmanian Supreme Court
1a. | Whether the magistrate erred in making the order when leave to make an application under the Family Violence Act 2004 (Tas) (the Act) had neither been sought nor granted. |
|---|---|
1b. | Alternatively, whether the magistrate erred in granting leave to make the application when the material was insufficient for that purpose. |
2. | Whether the magistrate erred in making an interim order because the evidence contained in the application was entirely hearsay. |
Decision and Reasoning: The application was dismissed.
1a. | The applicant submitted that the victim support officer was a person who was required to seek leave under s 15(2)(d) of the Act such that magistrate had no jurisdiction to hear the application without leave being granted. Tennent J held that a grant of leave was not a pre-condition to jurisdiction, and that s 15 merely provides for the procedure of the classes of persons who may make an application for an FVO. |
|---|---|
1b. | Counsel for the applicant conceded that the application for the order was an interlocutory proceeding. Under s 75 of the Evidence Act 2001 (Tas), the hearsay rule does not apply as long as the party adducing the evidence also adduces evidence of its source. Counsel submitted that because the application did not disclose the sources of the information, the evidence was inadmissible. Therefore, there was nothing in the application upon which the magistrate could properly have considered the issue of leave. Tennent J held that in relation to leave the Court should consider ‘the position of the person seeking leave, their relationship to the affected person and whether they may have acquired knowledge of the matters the subject of the application’ ([15]). In this case, the magistrate recognised the person seeking leave and that the protected person was a client of hers. Her position and relationship with her client, of itself, would have identified her as being able to provide assistance to the protected person. It was appropriate in those circumstances for the magistrate to grant leave. While leave should have been expressly addressed, a grant of leave was implicit from the conduct of the proceedings. |
2. | The applicant submitted that while some of the material in the application came from police reports, it was not clear whether the officers referred to were reporting from personal contact with the protected person or relying on others. Tennent J held that the protected person clearly identified her sources as two police officers. Her Honour stated that s 75 of the Evidence Act 2001 (Tas) is not limited to ‘first hand hearsay’. As such, the evidence was admissible. Her Honour then commented on the making of interim orders generally at [28]. Counsel for the applicant also raised the issue of the basis on which the magistrate made an order that extended to the children of the parties. The magistrate imposed the order so as to ‘err on the side of caution’ but was careful to not make an order preventing the applicant form approaching his children. Tennent J held this was appropriate: ‘It is well recognised that children in families where domestic violence is a factor can be affected by such violence whether or not they are directly subjected to it’. Even though there was limited material available to the magistrate, the interim nature of the order was reflected in its duration and an acknowledgment that the issue could be revisited. |
Oliver v Tasmania [2006] TASSC 95 (17 November 2006) – Tasmanian Supreme Court
Re S [2005] TASSC 89 (19 September 2005) – Tasmanian Supreme Court
Olsen v State of Tasmania [2005] TASSC 40 (13 May 2005) – Tasmanian Supreme Court
S v White [2005] TASSC 27 (21 April 2005) – Tasmanian Supreme Court
Her Majesty's Attorney-General v O [2004] TASSC 53 (9 June 2004) – Tasmanian Supreme Court
Waddington v R [2003] TASSC 21 (30 April 2003) – Tasmanian Supreme Court
Burton v R [2002] TASSC 64 (11 September 2002) – Tasmanian Supreme Court
Rice v McDonald [2000] TASSC 70 (21 June 2000) – Tasmanian Supreme Court
Supreme Court
Smith v Boarder [2022] TASSC 30 (16 May 2022) – Tasmanian Supreme Court
State of Tasmania v Matthew John Davey (Sentence) [2021] TASSC unreported (10 December 2021) – Tasmanian Supreme Court
State of Tasmania v Levi Joseph David Hall (Sentence) [2021] TASSC unreported (27 September 2021) – Tasmanian Supreme Court
State of Tasmania v ARJ (Sentence) [2021] TASSC unreported (11 March 2021) – Tasmanian Supreme Court
Hopkinson v Wilkie [2020] TASSC 32 (3 July 2020) – Tasmanian Supreme Court
Baker v Barratt [2019] TASSC 28 (4 July 2019) – Tasmanian Supreme Court
Irons v Moore [2019] TASSC 22 (22 May 2019) – Tasmanian Supreme Court
Cannell v G; G v Cannell [2018] TASSC 55 (1 November 2018) – Tasmanian Supreme Court
Harrison v Moore [2018] TASSC 53 (19 October 2018) – Tasmanian Supreme Court
Bonde v Maney [2018] TASSC 23 (17 May 2018) – Tasmanian Supreme Court
Moore v Rittman [2018] TASSC 5 (13 February 2018) – Tasmanian Supreme Court
Barnes v Crossin [2017] TASSC 61 (12 October 2017) – Tasmanian Supreme Court
Kirkwood v Thomas [2017] TASSC 56 (15 September 2017) – Tasmanian Supreme Court
Mayne v Tasmania [2017] TASSC 38 (29 June 2017) – Tasmanian Supreme Court
Parker v Hall [2015] TASSC 60 (10 December 2015) – Tasmanian Supreme Court
Lacroix v Lacroix [2015] TASSC 42 (3 September 2015) – Tasmanian Supreme Court
Young v Wilson [2015] TASSC 16 (28 April 2015) – Tasmanian Supreme Court
Higgins v McCulloch [2013] TASSC 49 (11 September 2013) – Tasmanian Supreme Court
Tasmania v Finnegan (No 2) [2012] TASSC 1 (19 January 2012) – Tasmanian Supreme Court
James v Tasmania [2010] TASSC 50 (11 November 2010) – Tasmanian Supreme Court
Beechey v McDonald [2010] TASSC 47 (25 October 2010) – Tasmanian Supreme Court
Maingay v Seabourne [2009] TASSC 67 (19 August 2009) – Tasmanian Supreme Court
Bradshaw v Tasmania [2009] TASSC 22 (9 April 2009) – Tasmanian Supreme Court
Allen v Kerr [2009] TASSC 10 (25 February 2009) – Tasmanian Supreme Court
Tasmania v R D P [2009] TASSC 72 (25 February 2009) – Tasmanian Supreme Court
Director of Public Prosecutions v P [2007] TASSC 51 (26 June 2007) – Tasmanian Supreme Court
Lambie v State of Tasmania [2007] TASSC 10 (7 March 2007) – Tasmanian Supreme Court
Remess v Rabe [2006] TASSC 105 (4 December 2006) – Tasmanian Supreme Court
1a. | Whether the magistrate erred in making the order when leave to make an application under the Family Violence Act 2004 (Tas) (the Act) had neither been sought nor granted. |
|---|---|
1b. | Alternatively, whether the magistrate erred in granting leave to make the application when the material was insufficient for that purpose. |
2. | Whether the magistrate erred in making an interim order because the evidence contained in the application was entirely hearsay. |
Decision and Reasoning: The application was dismissed.
1a. | The applicant submitted that the victim support officer was a person who was required to seek leave under s 15(2)(d) of the Act such that magistrate had no jurisdiction to hear the application without leave being granted. Tennent J held that a grant of leave was not a pre-condition to jurisdiction, and that s 15 merely provides for the procedure of the classes of persons who may make an application for an FVO. |
|---|---|
1b. | Counsel for the applicant conceded that the application for the order was an interlocutory proceeding. Under s 75 of the Evidence Act 2001 (Tas), the hearsay rule does not apply as long as the party adducing the evidence also adduces evidence of its source. Counsel submitted that because the application did not disclose the sources of the information, the evidence was inadmissible. Therefore, there was nothing in the application upon which the magistrate could properly have considered the issue of leave. Tennent J held that in relation to leave the Court should consider ‘the position of the person seeking leave, their relationship to the affected person and whether they may have acquired knowledge of the matters the subject of the application’ ([15]). In this case, the magistrate recognised the person seeking leave and that the protected person was a client of hers. Her position and relationship with her client, of itself, would have identified her as being able to provide assistance to the protected person. It was appropriate in those circumstances for the magistrate to grant leave. While leave should have been expressly addressed, a grant of leave was implicit from the conduct of the proceedings. |
2. | The applicant submitted that while some of the material in the application came from police reports, it was not clear whether the officers referred to were reporting from personal contact with the protected person or relying on others. Tennent J held that the protected person clearly identified her sources as two police officers. Her Honour stated that s 75 of the Evidence Act 2001 (Tas) is not limited to ‘first hand hearsay’. As such, the evidence was admissible. Her Honour then commented on the making of interim orders generally at [28]. Counsel for the applicant also raised the issue of the basis on which the magistrate made an order that extended to the children of the parties. The magistrate imposed the order so as to ‘err on the side of caution’ but was careful to not make an order preventing the applicant form approaching his children. Tennent J held this was appropriate: ‘It is well recognised that children in families where domestic violence is a factor can be affected by such violence whether or not they are directly subjected to it’. Even though there was limited material available to the magistrate, the interim nature of the order was reflected in its duration and an acknowledgment that the issue could be revisited. |
Oliver v Tasmania [2006] TASSC 95 (17 November 2006) – Tasmanian Supreme Court
Re S [2005] TASSC 89 (19 September 2005) – Tasmanian Supreme Court
Olsen v State of Tasmania [2005] TASSC 40 (13 May 2005) – Tasmanian Supreme Court
S v White [2005] TASSC 27 (21 April 2005) – Tasmanian Supreme Court
Her Majesty's Attorney-General v O [2004] TASSC 53 (9 June 2004) – Tasmanian Supreme Court
Waddington v R [2003] TASSC 21 (30 April 2003) – Tasmanian Supreme Court
Burton v R [2002] TASSC 64 (11 September 2002) – Tasmanian Supreme Court
Rice v McDonald [2000] TASSC 70 (21 June 2000) – Tasmanian Supreme Court