Andrew Vasilou v The Queen - [2014] VSCA 22

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2014 0022

ANDREW VASILOU	Appellant
	v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

---

JUDGES	NEAVE and BONGIORNO JJA
WHERE HELD	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING	11 February 2014
DATE OF JUDGMENT	11 February 2014
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION	[2014] VSCA 22
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM	Rulings of Judge Hampel, 3 February 2014, County Court of Victoria.

---

INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL – Review of refusal to certify – Trial almost complete – Rulings attacked not arguably appealable – No justification for certification – Application refused – Criminal Procedure Act 2009 ss 295, 296, 297 – No point of principle.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Applicant in person
For the Respondent	Mr G J C Silbert SC with Ms S Coombes	Mr C Hyland, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

THE COURT:

The applicant, Andrew Vasiliou, seeks leave to appeal against a refusal of a County Court judge to grant a certificate for an interlocutory appeal pursuant to s 295(3)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Act2009 (‘the Act’). The application relates to rulings made by the trial judge on 3 February 2014. In the first ruling, her Honour refused to grant the applicant a stay of the proceeding on the grounds of his ill health, the stress imposed as a self-represented accused and his inability to pay for a taxi to court each day. In the second ruling, the trial judge refused Mr Vasiliou's further application for a grant of legal aid under s 197 of the Act, an earlier application having been refused by Judge Morrish on 23 December 2013.

The applicant now wishes to review these decisions under s 296 of the Act. The grounds that the applicant puts forward are:

1.The trial cannot proceed without proper and legal representation by an experienced legal lawyer.
2.That if the trial goes ahead without the necessary legal representation, such hearing without legal and procedure assistances would cause major health issues against Andrew Vasiliou including unfair and unjust trial also.
3.Also there a question of travelling costs that Andrew Vasiliou, he lacking to pay due to the fact that he receives no income from any source either.

On 20 November 2010, the applicant was arrested and charged with theft of a soap product from a supermarket and reckless conduct endangering life. The latter charge alleged that he dangerously reversed his car towards the manager and loss protection officer of the supermarket from which the soap was allegedly removed. The matter was initially listed to be heard in the summary jurisdiction of the Magistrates' Court but the applicant elected to have it heard in the County Court before a judge and jury.

It was not until 8 December 2013 that the applicant applied for legal aid. On 17 December, the applicant was advised that legal assistance would be refused because his application did not meet the merits test and that if he wished it to be considered he needed to provide further information about this financial circumstances. The matter did not fall…

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 Andrew Vasilou v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Andrew Vasilou v The Queen [2014] VSCA 22
Case: [2014] VSCA 22
Decision Date: 11 February 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Andrew Vasilou versus The Queen involved an interlocutory appeal concerning the refusal to certify certain questions of law for appeal. Vasilou, the appellant, sought to appeal specific rulings made by the trial judge that he believed were erroneous and required clarification. The appeal was heard in the relevant appellate court, which had to determine whether the refusal to certify the questions was appropriate. The central legal issues before the court were whether the rulings in question were arguably appealable and whether there was any justification for certification under the relevant sections of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009. Additionally, the court had to consider if there was any point of principle that warranted the certification of the questions.

The appellate court examined the nature of the rulings Vasilou sought to appeal, finding that they were not arguably appealable as they did not raise substantial questions of law that would have a significant impact on the administration of justice. Furthermore, the court concluded that there was no justification for certification as the trial was almost complete, and the appeal would not serve the interests of justice. The court found that the rulings attacked did not present a point of principle that would benefit from higher court review. Consequently, the application for certification was refused. The court's reasoning was grounded in the statutory provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009 and the need to ensure that the certification process was not abused for interlocutory appeals.

Given the findings, the court upheld the trial judge's decision and refused the application for certification. The court determined that there was no basis for the appeal under the circumstances presented and that no point of principle was involved that would warrant the certification of the questions for appeal. The final orders of the court confirmed the refusal of the application and the continuation of the trial proceedings without further appellate intervention at that stage.

Orders