Amy Sacco v The Queen - [2018] VSCA 353

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2018 0229

AMY SACCO	Applicant
v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	PRIEST, BEACH and EMERTON JJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	13 December 2018
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	19 December 2018
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2018] VSCA 353
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	DPP v Sacco (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, Judge Murphy, 10 August 2018 (conviction))

---

CRIMINAL LAW — Appeal — Conviction — Trial — Unrepresented accused — Possible objections to evidence — Scope of trial judge’s duty — Whether judge obliged to raise potential admissibility objections — Whether trial judge failed to provide unrepresented accused with necessary information and assistance — Whether serious departure from prescribed processes of a trial — Whether substantial miscarriage of justice — Whether conviction inevitable — Application for leave to appeal refused.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr D A Dann QC	Melinda Walker – Criminal Law Solicitors
For the Respondent	Mr C T Carr	Mr John Cain, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

PRIEST JA
BEACH JA
EMERTON JA:

Introduction

By a majority verdict, on 10 August 2018 a jury in the County Court convicted the applicant of attempting to pervert the course of justice.[1]
[1]Attempting to pervert the course of justice is a common law crime. By virtue of s 320 of the Crimes Act 1958 it is punishable by a maximum term of 25 years’ imprisonment.

The applicant was unrepresented at trial. She now seeks leave to appeal against that conviction on the ground that a ‘substantial miscarriage of justice has occurred in circumstances where the unrepresented Applicant was not provided with the level of assistance that was necessary to ensure a fair trial’.[2]
[2]The applicant did not seek leave to appeal against her sentence. On 7 September 2018, the trial judge sentenced her to a community correction order of nine months’ duration, with a condition that she perform 100 hours of unpaid community work.

For the reasons that follow, we would refuse leave to appeal.

The offending and police investigation

At the time of the offence, the applicant, who was born on 18 January 1991, was aged 24 years. She had been in a long-term relationship with Jonas Black, then aged 45 years. Black had been arrested on 25 May 2015 in relation to charges of attempted murder (and other charges). On 17 June 2015, Black was being held in custody at the Metropolitan Remand Centre (‘MRC’) awaiting committal.

The charges against Black arose out of an incident at his property at Turtons Creek, during which he attacked two South Gippsland Shire workers, striking their heads with a piece of metal scaffolding pipe.

During investigation of the attack, police located a plastic tarpaulin spread out over the rear cargo area of Black’s Nissan Patrol, together with two bags of hydrated lime, a long handled spade and mattock with fresh deposits of clay on them, a piece of metal pipe and a short handled shovel with blood stains. Significantly, the day after the…

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 Amy Sacco v The Queen 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: [2018] VSCA 353
Decision Date: 19 December 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Amy Sacco v The Queen involved an appeal by the accused against her conviction. Sacco was on trial for an offence and proceeded unrepresented. Throughout the trial, several potential admissibility objections were raised but not pursued by the accused. The central issue before the court was whether the trial judge was obligated to raise these objections on behalf of Sacco, who was unrepresented, and if the judge's failure to do so constituted a serious departure from prescribed trial processes, leading to a substantial miscarriage of justice. Additionally, the court considered whether such a departure was inevitable in the outcome of the conviction.

The court meticulously examined the trial judge’s conduct, focusing on the duty to ensure that unrepresented accused persons receive necessary information and assistance. It was determined that while the trial judge has a duty to ensure fairness, this does not extend to unilaterally raising objections that the accused chooses not to pursue. The court found that the trial judge did not fail in providing the necessary assistance and information to Sacco, and therefore, there was no serious departure from the prescribed processes of the trial. Furthermore, the court held that any procedural error did not result in a substantial miscarriage of justice, as the evidence against Sacco was compelling and her conviction was inevitable.

In light of the above findings, the court concluded that the appeal lacked merit. The application for leave to appeal was accordingly refused. This decision underscores the balance between the rights of an unrepresented accused and the procedural obligations of the trial judge, reaffirming that the court will not intervene unless there is a significant procedural error that materially affects the outcome.

Orders