Aliano v Ashwood - [2018] TASSC 44

[2018] TASSC 44

COURT: SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA

CITATION: Aliano v Ashwood [2018] TASSC 44

PARTIES:  ALIANO, Thomas James
  v
  ASHWOOD, Michael (Sergeant)

FILE NO:  1872/2018
DELIVERED ON:  24 September 2018
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATE:  17 September 2018
JUDGMENT OF:  Brett J

CATCHWORDS:

Magistrates – Hearing – Evidence – Other matters – Matters relating to decision – Applicant's fingerprints were found on counterfeited notes and related manufacturing material – Reasonably open to magistrate to reach a conclusion of guilt in respect of each charge.

Phillips v Arnold [2009] TASSC 43, 19 Tas R 21, referred to.
Aust Dig Magistrates [1153].

Magistrates – Orders and convictions – Sentence – Custodial orders – Limitations on consecutive or cumulative sentences – Magistrate imposed State and federal sentence of imprisonment, with federal sentence commencing on the date the State sentence was to end – Applicant argued not making the sentence cumulative was an error because it denied him the right to be considered for a remission on the State sentence – Magistrate required to fix a specific date for commencement of the federal sentence.

Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s 19.
Mercanti v The Queen [2011] WASCA 120, applied.
Aust Dig Magistrates [1218]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Applicant:  In person
             Respondent:  J Nunn
Solicitors:
             Respondent:  Director of Public Prosecutions (Commonwealth)

Judgment Number: [2018] TASSC 44
Number of paragraphs: 27

Serial No 44/2018
File No 1872/2018

THOMAS JAMES ALIANO v SERGEANT MICHAEL ASHWOOD

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BRETT J

24 September 2018

On 10 March 2017, during a search of premises pursuant to a search warrant, police found the applicant in the sole bedroom of a unit. Police also located in the bedroom a quantity of counterfeit $50 notes, together with other material consistent with the manufacture of counterfeit currency, and a computer which, when examined, revealed that someone had made a number of Google searches in relation to the manufacture of counterfeit $50 notes. Subsequent forensic investigation revealed the applicant's fingerprints on the counterfeit notes, the computer and the container in which the counterfeit money had been found. DNA with a high probability match to the applicant was also located on the container.
The applicant was charged with the following offences which were contrary to the Crimes Currency Act 1981 (Cth) (the Act):
(a)Possession of counterfeit money contrary to s 9(1)(a) of the Act;
(b)Making counterfeit money contrary to s 6 of the Act; and
(c)Possession of material used for counterfeiting contrary to s 11(2)(b) of the Act.
The applicant pleaded not guilty to all three charges. On 6 March 2018, after a hearing, Magistrate S Cure found each charged proved. Her Honour published written reasons. On 22 May 2018, her Honour sentenced the applicant in respect of the said offences, and imposed a separate sentence in relation to State offences to which the applicant had pleaded guilty. The sentences imposed were as follows:
(b)In respect of the State offences, a global sentence of six months' imprisonment…

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 Aliano v Ashwood

Details

AGLC: Aliano v Ashwood [2018] TASSC 44
Case: [2018] TASSC 44
Decision Date: 24 September 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Aliano was charged with the manufacture of counterfeit currency and related offences. The matter was heard in the Magistrates Court of Victoria. Aliano challenged the decision, claiming there was insufficient evidence to support a finding of guilt. The key issues before the court were whether the magistrate was correct in finding Aliano guilty and whether the evidence was sufficient to support the conclusion.

The court considered the evidence, including the presence of Aliano’s fingerprints on the counterfeit notes and related manufacturing material. It determined that the magistrate was reasonably entitled to find Aliano guilty based on the evidence presented. The court found that the magistrate properly considered the evidence and was not required to accept the applicant's version of events. The appeal was dismissed.

The court found that the magistrate was reasonably open to concluding that the evidence demonstrated Aliano’s involvement in the manufacture of the counterfeit currency. The presence of Aliano’s fingerprints on the counterfeit notes and manufacturing equipment was a significant factor. The court held that the magistrate’s decision was supported by the evidence and that there was no error in the decision-making process. The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the original decision of the magistrate.

Orders