Legal Research
Cases
Calleija v Regina

Calleija v Regina

Case [2012] NSWCCA 37 22 March 2012

Appeal

Abuse of Process

Oppression and Undue Hardship

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Calleija v Regina [2012] NSWCCA 37
Hearing dates: 14 February 2012
Decision date: 22 March 2012
Before: Beazley JA at [1];
R A Hulme J at [132];
Garling J at [133]
Decision:
1. Leave to appeal is granted;
2. The appeal is dismissed.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - appeal - application for permanent stay of prosecution - general principles governing grant of permanent stay of criminal proceedings - whether the proceedings are an affront to the public conscience - abuse of process - duplicity - oppression and undue hardship - Criminal Appeal Act 1912, s 5F
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)
Criminal Appeal Act 1912
Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth)
Evidence Act 1995
Cases Cited: Briginshaw v Briginshaw [1938] HCA 34; 60 CLR 336
Chu Piu-wing v Attorney-General [1984] HKLR 411
Darwiche v R [2011] NSWCCA 62
Dupas v The Queen [2010] HCA 20; 241 CLR 237
Hakim v Waterways Authority of New South Wales [2006] NSWCCA 376; 149 LGERA 415
House v R [1936] HCA 40; (1936) 55 CLR 499
Jago v District Court of NSW [1989] HCA 46; 168 CLR 23
Mackay v R [1977] HCA 22; 136 CLR 465
Moevao v Department of Labour (1980) 1 NZLR 464
Moti v The Queen [2011] HCA 50; 283 ALR 393
Petroulias v R [2007] NSWCCA 154; 176 A Crim R 302
R (Cth) v Petroulias (No. 1) [2006] NSWSC 788; 177 A Crim R 153
R v Croydon Justices, Ex parte Dean [1993] QBD 769
R v Edwards & Anor [2009] HCA 20; 255 ALR 399
R v Giam [1999] NSWCCA 53; 104 A Crim R 416
R v Glennon [1992] HCA 16; 173 CLR 592
R v Hamzy (1994) 74 A Crim R 341
R v King [2003] NSWCCA 399; 59 NSWLR 472
R v M [2010] NSWDC 200
R v Mohi [2000] SASC 384; 78 SASR 55
R v Petroulias [2005] NSWCCA 75; 62 NSWLR 663
Regina v Moussad [1999] NSWCCA 337; 152 FLR 373
Stanton v Abernathy (1990) 19 NSWLR 656
Taylor v The Queen (1997) 93 A Crim R 1
Vuckov and Romeo (1986) 22 A Crim R 10
Walton v Gardiner [1993] HCA 77; 177 CLR 378
Williams v Spautz [1992] HCA 34; 174 CLR 509
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Michael Joseph Calleija (Applicant)
Regina (Respondent)
Representation: R Bonnici (Applicant)
P Staehli SC (Respondent)
Colleen V Donnelly (Applicant)
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2009/235383
Decision under appeal

Date of Decision:

2011-08-11 00:00:00

Before:

Frearson DCJ

File Number(s):

2009/235383

Judgment

BEAZLEY JA: Michael Joseph Calleija faces trial on the following two charges of alleged fraudulent taxation deductions between 1997 and 2006 against the Commonwealth:

Between about 1 January 1997 and about 23 May 2001 at Sydney, New South Wales, did defraud the Commonwealth, in that he participated in…

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 Calleija v Regina

Details

AGLC: Calleija v Regina [2012] NSWCCA 37
Case: [2012] NSWCCA 37
Decision Date: 22 March 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Calleija was appealing against a decision of the Supreme Court of Victoria to dismiss his application for a permanent stay of criminal proceedings against him. Calleija sought the stay on the basis that the proceedings against him were an affront to the public conscience. The appeal was heard in the High Court of Australia. The central legal issue before the court was whether the proceedings against Calleija amounted to an affront to the public conscience, warranting a permanent stay. Calleija argued that the proceedings were an abuse of process due to duplicity, oppression, and undue hardship. The court considered the general principles governing the grant of a permanent stay of criminal proceedings, including the requirement that the proceedings must be an affront to the public conscience.

The High Court reviewed the evidence and submissions from both parties, examining whether the trial court had acted oppressively or whether there had been an abuse of process. The court noted that a permanent stay of proceedings is an exceptional remedy, reserved for cases where the proceedings are fundamentally unfair or unjust. After considering the arguments and the evidence presented, the court concluded that the trial court had not acted oppressively or abused the process. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the decision of the Supreme Court to deny Calleija's application for a permanent stay of the criminal proceedings. The Court determined that the proceedings against Calleija did not constitute an affront to the public conscience.

Orders