TT Line Company Pty Ltd v Burrows

[2021] TASFC 3

Tasmania Full Court

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Magistrates
2. › Appeal and review
3. › Tasmania
4. › Motion to review
5. › When remedy available
6. › Jurisdiction
7. › Definition of 'order'
8. › Whether ruling on duplicity constitutes an 'order' amenable to review
9. › Whether ruling goes to jurisdiction of court below
10. › Justices Act 1959 (Tas), ss 107, 116
1. Criminal Law
2. › Procedure
3. › Information, indictment or presentment
4. › Averments
5. › Uncertainty, duplicity and ambiguity
6. › Duplicity
7. › Offence of using method of management reasonably likely to result in unreasonable pain or suffering
8. › Whether particulars alleging multiple aspects of method of management rendered charge duplicitous
9. › Whether method of management comprised single course of conduct
10. › Animal Welfare Act 1993 (Tas), s 7
1. Appeal
2. › New ground of appeal
3. › Whether leave should be granted to argue ground not raised below
4. › Exceptional circumstances required
5. › Whether omission to act can form part of 'method of management'
6. › Animal Welfare Act 1993 (Tas), s 7

Quick Take

A charge under s 7 of the Animal Welfare Act 1993 (Tas) alleging the use of a method of management reasonably likely to result in unreasonable pain or suffering is not duplicitous merely because the particulars identify multiple aspects of that method, each of which could independently establish the offence. A method of management almost inevitably comprises multiple aspects, and the charge relates to a single course of conduct. A magistrate's ruling on duplicity is an 'order' amenable to review under s 107 of the Justices Act 1959 (Tas) because it goes to the jurisdiction of the court to hear the complaint.