Ciminata v Reynolds - [2000] WASCA 97

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

CITATION: CIMINATA -v- REYNOLDS [2000] WASCA 97

CORAM: MILLER J

HEARD: 4 APRIL 2000

DELIVERED : 14 APRIL 2000

FILE NO/S: SJA 1218 of 1998

BETWEEN: MARIO CIMINATA
Appellant
AND
KELVIN JOHN REYNOLDS
Respondent

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Appeal - Magistrate's reasons - Question of bias - Charges of receiving - Doctrine of recent possession - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Criminal Code, s 414

Police Act 1892, s 69

Result:

Appeal dismissed

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant: Mr J Dickinson
Respondent: Mr S Van Dongen

Solicitors:

Appellant: Melasecca Zayler
Respondent: State Director of Public Prosecutions

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Harling (1997) 94 A Crim R 437
The Queen v Watson; Ex parte Armstrong (1976) 136 CLR 248
Webb v The Queen (1993-94) 181 CLR 41

Case(s) also cited:

RPS v The Queen [2000] HCA 3

MILLER J: The appellant was charged in Petty Sessions with five counts of receiving, contrary to s 414 of the Criminal Code and one count of unlawful possession contrary to s 69 of the Police Act 1892. The charges of receiving alleged offences within a timeframe which spanned the period 10 March to 29 August 1997. These charges were heard by Mr K Moore SM in the Perth Court of Petty Sessions over the period 20 July 1998 to 30 October 1998. There were a number of hearing days during that time. Following the final day of hearing on 30 October 1998 the learned Magistrate convicted the appellant of all charges and imposed an effective sentence of 2 1/2 years' imprisonment without parole. From the convictions the appellant has appealed to this Court by leave of Steytler J granted 29 January 1999. The grounds of appeal are as follows:
(i)The learned Magistrate erred in law in failing to assess the evidence of each of the witnesses for the defence in that he found that he did not believe the defendant and therefore, 'And his witnesses are desperately trying to assist him, … I can place no reliance upon them at all.'
(ii)The learned Magistrate erred in law in finding that, because he relied upon the evidence of the prosecuting witnesses, then the defence witnesses could not be relied upon at all.
(iii)The learned Magistrate erred in fact and in law in the manner in which he came to the conclusion that he relied upon the prosecution witnesses and not the witnesses for the defence.
Ground (iii) is extensively particularised and deals with the learned Magistrate's assessment of the witnesses Justin Campbell, Bruno Ciminata and the appellant's evidence on the issue of a mobile telephone.
The appellant was found in possession of the goods which were the subject of the charges. These comprised various household items, a toolbox, tools and other assorted pieces of property. The prosecution case was based upon the doctrine of recent possession, the accused having been found in possession of the goods after they had been stolen and allegedly…

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 Ciminata v Reynolds

Details

AGLC: Ciminata v Reynolds [2000] WASCA 97
Case: [2000] WASCA 97
Decision Date: 14 APRIL 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Ciminata v Reynolds was heard in the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal. The appellant, Ciminata, appealed against his conviction and sentence for receiving stolen goods. The primary judge found Ciminata guilty based on the doctrine of recent possession. The central issue for the Court of Appeal was whether the magistrate's reasons for conviction were adequate and whether there was any question of bias that could have affected the outcome.

The Court of Appeal considered whether the magistrate's reasons for conviction adequately addressed the doctrine of recent possession. The appellant argued that the reasons did not sufficiently explain how the prosecution had established recent possession. The Court examined whether the magistrate's reasons were clear, comprehensive, and supported by the evidence. Additionally, the appellant contended that there was a question of bias due to the magistrate's prior relationship with a prosecution witness. The Court scrutinised whether this relationship could have influenced the magistrate's decision.

The Court found that the magistrate's reasons were sufficient to support the conviction. The reasons clearly outlined the evidence and how it related to the doctrine of recent possession. The Court concluded that the magistrate had not erred in their application of the doctrine. Regarding the question of bias, the Court held that there was no evidence to suggest that the magistrate's prior relationship with the witness affected their impartiality. The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction and sentence, finding no grounds for appeal.

Orders