Collins v Caccavo - [2014] TASSC 1

[2014] TASSC 1

COURT: SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA

CITATION: Collins v Caccavo [2014] TASSC 1

PARTIES: COLLINS, Roger (Constable)
v

CACCAVO, Rocco

FILE NO:  510/2013
DELIVERED ON:  30 January 2014
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATE:  1 November 2013
JUDGMENT OF:  Tennent J

CATCHWORDS:

Magistrates – Appeal and review – Tasmania – Motion to review – Other matters – Review of order by magistrate dismissing complaint containing one count of receiving stolen property – Circumstances in which such a review might succeed.
Criminal Code (Tas), s258.

Kent v Gunns Limited [2009] TASSC 30; R v Dick 99/1982; Grundy v R [1994] TASSC 111; R v Quillerat 84/1962, followed.

Aust Dig Magistrates [1349]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
Applicant: S Nicholson
Respondent: A G Melick SC and J White

Solicitors:
Applicant: Director of Public Prosecutions
Respondent: Michael Kirby Chambers

Judgment Number: [2014] TASSC 1
Number of paragraphs: 49

Serial No 1/2014
File No 510/2013

CONSTABLE ROGER COLLINS v ROCCO CACCAVO

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT TENNENT J

30 January 2014

This is a review of a decision by Magistrate Simon Cooper delivered on 17 May 2013 by which, following a hearing, he dismissed a complaint against the respondent, Rocco Caccavo.

On complaint number 3009/12, the respondent was charged with one count of receiving stolen property contrary to the Criminal Code, s258. The particulars of the charge were as follows:

"You are charged with on or about the 8th April, 2011, at Hobart in Tasmania, without lawful excuse receiving stolen property, namely, 1x pallet of Smoked Salmon sides to an approximate value of $8080.00 knowing same to be stolen property."

There was no dispute that the respondent had acquired the relevant salmon and from whom. There was also no dispute that the person from whom he had acquired the salmon had stolen it. The issue at the hearing before the learned magistrate was the state of the respondent's knowledge about the salmon's status when he acquired it.

Grounds of review

The grounds of review are as follows:

"1.The learned magistrate erred in fact and / or in law in finding the respondent not guilty of the offence where [on] no reasonable view of the evidence could he have failed to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the guilt of the respondent.
2.The learned magistrate erred in fact and / or in law in finding that he was not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the necessary mental element had been established in the case."

The decision of the learned magistrate

The reasons of the learned magistrate were as follows:

"DECISION – HIS HONOUR: Mr Caccavo is charged with on or about the 8^th of April, 2011, at Hobart in Tasmania without lawful excuse receiving stolen property, namely one pallet of smoked salmon sides to an approximate value of $8,080.00 knowing the same to be stolen property. Charges were laid pursuant to s258 of the Criminal Code (1924).
The following facts are not in dispute and I find them proved that on or about the 8

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 Collins v Caccavo

Details

AGLC: Collins v Caccavo [2014] TASSC 1
Case: [2014] TASSC 1
Decision Date: 30 January 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Collins v Caccavo is a case that came before the court concerning a dispute between the plaintiff, Collins, and the defendant, Caccavo. The crux of the matter was a complaint filed by Collins against Caccavo, which included a count of receiving stolen property. The Magistrates Court of Tasmania dismissed the complaint, prompting Collins to seek a review of this decision. The appeal pertains to the procedural and substantive grounds upon which such a review could be warranted.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the dismissal of the complaint by the magistrate was subject to review and, if so, under what circumstances such a review might succeed. The court had to examine the grounds for review, which generally involve errors in procedure, misapplication of the law, or an outcome that is unjust in the circumstances. In this instance, the court needed to determine whether any such grounds were present in the magistrate's dismissal of the complaint.

In its reasoning, the court examined the applicable legal framework for review in the Magistrates Court of Tasmania. It concluded that while the dismissal of a complaint is generally not subject to automatic review, there are exceptional circumstances where a review might be granted. These include cases where there has been a clear error of law or a significant procedural irregularity. The court found that the dismissal in this case did not meet the threshold for review, as there was no evident error in the application of the law or significant procedural misstep. Consequently, the motion to review was dismissed, affirming the magistrate's decision.

The court's decision underscores the stringent criteria required for a review of a magistrate's decision in such matters. The final orders confirmed that the dismissal of the complaint by the magistrate stands, and the motion to review was rejected. This outcome reinforces the principle that judicial decisions in such contexts are not easily overturned unless there is a clear and significant error.

Orders