Legal Research
Cases
Cross v Police

Cross v Police

Case [2001] SASC 47 1 March 2001

Type to search within this case.

CROSS v POLICE
[2001] SASC 47

Magistrates Appeal (Criminal)

1................ OLSSON J....... This is an appeal against a sentence imposed on the appellant in the Magistrates Court on the ground that it is manifestly excessive in all the circumstances. It is also complained that the learned magistrate erred in law, in that he did not give adequate reasons for sentence.

The appellant, a single man now aged 43 years, entered a timely plea of guilty to a charge that, on 13 February 2000 at Adelaide, knowing or believing that Sascha Dion Perna had committed an offence, he did an act with the intention of assisting him to dispose of the proceeds of the offence, contrary to the provisions of s 241(1)(b) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, 1935.
The narrative facts relating to the circumstances of the offending were not in dispute.
In the early hours of 13 February 2000 a uniformed police patrol pulled over a vehicle owned and driven by the appellant in Stanley Street, North Adelaide. The appellant did not possess a driver’s licence. The person Perna was a passenger in the vehicle.
Police suspicions that all was not well were said to have been aroused by various circumstances. However, notable amongst these was the presence, in the rear of the appellant’s vehicle, of a large boxed and packaged computer monitor.
When questioned by the police the appellant said that he had previously picked Perna up in Hindley Street. The latter had placed the monitor and other items (comprising computer and electrical equipment and tools) in the vehicle.
Enquiries made by the police revealed that the monitor and other items had been stolen from a vehicle near the intersection of Hutt Street and South Terrace, Adelaide between 2.00 am and 4.00 am the same morning. Their collective value was about $2,077.00.
When questioned by the police, the appellant admitted that he had realized, at some stage, that the items had probably been stolen by Perna. Both men were arrested. Perna declined to answer questions. As I understand the situation the appellant had no particular suspicions when he picked Perna up. He developed them after he picked him up.
The learned magistrate was informed by the appellant’s solicitor that, on what I take to be 12 February 2000, he had cut his finger quite badly. He had been unable to sleep due to a throbbing pain in the finger. In the early hours of the morning he got up and went for a walk in the neighbourhood with his dog.
In so doing he walked past Perna’s home in Arthur Street, Pennington. He there encountered Perna’s girlfriend in a state of some distress. Perna’s little daughter “was standing there screaming for her father”.
The girlfriend told the appellant that she had been contacted by Perna, who said that he was stranded in Hindley Street and had no transport. The girlfriend said that she was unable to pick Perna up because she did not have…

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 Cross v Police

Details

AGLC: Cross v Police [2001] SASC 47
Case: [2001] SASC 47
Decision Date: 1 March 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Cross v Police, the appellant appealed against a sentence imposed by the Magistrates Court, arguing it was manifestly excessive and that the magistrate failed to provide adequate reasons for the sentence. The appellant, a man with intellectual disabilities, pleaded guilty to aiding a friend in disposing of stolen goods. The court had to determine whether the sentence was too harsh and whether the magistrate's failure to give adequate reasons constituted a legal error. The South Australian Supreme Court found that the sentence was indeed excessive and that the magistrate's failure to provide adequate reasons was a legal error, necessitating a re-assessment of the sentence. The court acknowledged the appellant's intellectual disabilities and the circumstances leading to the offence, concluding that a more lenient sentence was warranted. The appeal was allowed, and the original sentence was replaced with a suspended sentence of 14 days' imprisonment.

Orders