DELIVERED ON: 26 August 2012 DELIVERED AT: Hobart HEARING DATE/S: 3 June 2012 JUDGMENT OF: Blow CJ, Porter and Pearce JJ
CATCHWORDS:
Appeal and New Trial – Appeal – General principles – Right of appeal – When appeal lies – Error of law – What is – Distinction between question of law and question of fact.
Appeal and New Trial – Appeal – General principles – Right of appeal – When appeal lies – Error of law – Particular cases involving error of law – Failure to give reasons for decision – Adequacy of reasons
Appeal and New Trial – Appeal – Practice and procedure – Tasmania – Powers of court – Other matters – Principles applicable to an appeal against a review by the Supreme Court of the factual findings of a magistrate.
Appellant: A G Melick SC, R Broomhall Respondent: S Nicholson
Solicitors:
Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions
Judgment Number: [2014] TASFC 7 Number of paragraphs: 42
Serial No 7/2014
File No 110/2014
ROCCO CACCAVO v ROGER COLLINS
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT FULL COURT
BLOW CJ PORTER J PEARCE J 26 August 2014
Order of the Court
Appeal dismissed.
Serial No 7/2014
File No 110/2014
ROCCO CACCAVO v ROGER COLLINS
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT FULL COURT
BLOW CJ 26 August 2014
For the reasons stated by Pearce J, I agree that this appeal should be dismissed.
File No 110/2014
ROCCO CACCAVO v ROGER COLLINS
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT FULL COURT
PORTER J 26 August 2014
I agree with Pearce J. The primary judge determined that on no reasonable view of the evidence could the magistrate have failed to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the appellant's guilt. The appellant has not shown any error of law in that determination.
File No 110/2014
ROCCO CACCAVO v ROGER COLLINS
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT FULL COURT
PEARCE J 26 August 2014
The appellant, Rocco Caccavo, was charged on complaint with receiving stolen property contrary to the Criminal Code, s258. The complaint alleged that, in Hobart on or about 8 April…
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 Caccavo v Collins
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Caccavo v Collins [2014] TASFC 7
Case
[2014] TASFC 7
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appeal concerned a dispute between Caccavo and Collins. The specific nature of the dispute and the court of first instance are not detailed in the provided text. The matter came before the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Tasmania, comprising Blow CJ, Porter and Pearce JJ.
The central legal issue before the Full Court was whether the appeal involved an error of law, as distinct from an error of fact, which is a prerequisite for a successful appeal in this context. The court was required to determine the nature of the alleged error and whether it constituted a question of law.
The court's reasoning focused on the distinction between questions of law and questions of fact. While the precise application of this distinction to the facts of the case is not elaborated, the court ultimately found that the grounds of appeal did not disclose an error of law. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.