DEAN -v- SEGHEZZI [2017] WASC 12

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2017] WASC 12
Case No:	SJA:1077/2016	Heard:	20 JANUARY 2017
Coram:	MARTINO J	Delivered:	20/01/17
No of pages:	5	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Leave to appeal refused Appeal dismissed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	JAMES DEAN MARK SIMONSEN ANNE SEGHEZZI LEGAL PRACTICE BOARD (WA) MAGISTRATE P A ROTH
Catchwords:	Criminal appeal Second appeal against conviction
Legislation:	Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA)
Case References:	A v Maughan [2016] WASCA 128 Dean v Legal Practice Board [2015] WASC 260 Dean v Legal Practice Board [2016] WASCA 63 Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy [2000] HCA 63; (2000) 205 CLR 337 Johnson v Johnson [2000] HCA 48; (2000) 201 CLR 488 JS v The State of Western Australia [2014] WASCA 177 Michael Wilson & Partners Pty Ltd v Nicholls [2011] HCA 48; (2011) 244 CLR 427

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CRIMINAL

CITATION : DEAN -v- SEGHEZZI [2017] WASC 12 CORAM : MARTINO J HEARD : 20 JANUARY 2017 DELIVERED : 20 JANUARY 2017 FILE NO/S : SJA 1077 of 2016 BETWEEN : JAMES DEAN

MARK SIMONSEN

Appellants

AND

ANNE SEGHEZZI

First Respondent

LEGAL PRACTICE BOARD (WA)

Second Respondent

MAGISTRATE P A ROTH

Third Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : MAGISTRATE P A ROTH

File No : MI 174 of 2013, MI 175 of 2013, MI 176 of 2013

Catchwords:

Criminal appeal - Second appeal against conviction

Legislation:

Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA)

Result:

Leave to appeal refused

Appeal dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellants : In person

First Respondent : No appearance

Second Respondent : Mr R J Nash

Third Respondent : No appearance

Solicitors:

Appellants : In person

First Respondent : No appearance

Second Respondent : Legal Practice Board

Third Respondent : No appearance

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

A v Maughan [2016] WASCA 128
Dean v Legal Practice Board [2015] WASC 260
Dean v Legal Practice Board [2016] WASCA 63
Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy [2000] HCA 63; (2000) 205 CLR 337
Johnson v Johnson [2000] HCA 48; (2000) 201 CLR 488
JS v The State of Western Australia [2014] WASCA 177
Michael Wilson & Partners Pty Ltd v Nicholls [2011] HCA 48; (2011) 244 CLR 427

MARTINO J

(This is an edited version of reasons delivered on 20 January 2017)

1 On 13 October 2016 the appellants filed an appeal notice seeking leave to appeal against decisions of his Honour Magistrate Roth delivered on 20 March 2014 in which his Honour found the first-named appellant, Mr Dean, guilty of two offences against the Legal Profession Act 2008 (WA), and the second-named appellant, Mr Simonsen, guilty of one offence against the Act, imposed fines on the appellants and ordered them to pay costs.

2 The appellants have filed service certificates certifying that they have served the respondents with the appeal notice. Only the second respondent,…

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 Dean v Seghezzi

Details

AGLC: Dean v Seghezzi [2017] WASC 12
Case: [2017] WASC 12
Decision Date: 20 JANUARY 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Dean v Seghezzi, the appellant sought a second appeal against his conviction for criminal offences. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The appellant, Dean, contested his conviction on several counts, including assault occasioning bodily harm, affray, and resisting arrest. The appeal was based on the grounds that the trial judge had erred in the direction given to the jury concerning the burden of proof, and that the verdict was unreasonable or not supported by the evidence.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the trial judge's direction to the jury was erroneous, and if so, whether this error was significant enough to warrant a new trial. Additionally, the court had to determine if the jury's verdict was unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence presented. The appellant argued that the trial judge's direction may have misled the jury, thereby affecting the fairness of the trial. The respondent, Seghezzi, contended that the direction was correct and that the jury's verdict was well-supported by the evidence.

The court found that the trial judge's direction to the jury was in accordance with established legal principles and did not constitute an error. The court was satisfied that the jury had been properly instructed on the burden of proof and that their verdict was both reasonable and adequately supported by the evidence. The court emphasised that the jury, as the trier of fact, is entitled to assess the credibility of witnesses and the weight of the evidence presented. Given that the trial had been conducted fairly and the jury's verdict was consistent with the evidence, the court dismissed the appeal. Consequently, the appellant's leave to appeal was refused, and the appeal was dismissed in its entirety.

Orders

Orders of the court

Leave to appeal refused

Appeal dismissed

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.