FITAS -v- MASTRANGELO [2015] WASC 285

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2015] WASC 285
Case No:	SJA:1099/2014	Heard:	24 JULY 2015
Coram:	PRITCHARD J	Delivered:	24/07/15
No of pages:	12	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Leave to appeal is refused Appeal dismissed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	SACHA FITAS JUSTIN BRADLEY MASTRANGELO
Catchwords:	Criminal law and procedure Appeal against conviction Leave to appeal Whether Magistrate erred in fact Whether Magistrate erred in law Whether reasonable prospect of success Leave to appeal refused Appeal dismissed
Legislation:	Road Traffic Code 2000 (WA) Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA)
Case References:	Butera v Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) (Vic) [1987] HCA 58; (1987) 164 CLR 180 Fox v Percy [2003] HCA 22; (2003) 214 CLR 118 Golden Eagle International Trading Pty Ltd v Zhang [2007] HCA 15; (2007) 229 CLR 498 Samuels v The State of Western Australia [2006] WASCA 222 Sekyere-Boakye v Whitney [2013] WASC 147

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CIVIL

CITATION : FITAS -v- MASTRANGELO [2015] WASC 285 CORAM : PRITCHARD J HEARD : 24 JULY 2015 DELIVERED : 24 JULY 2015 FILE NO/S : SJA 1099 of 2014 BETWEEN : SACHA FITAS

Appellant

AND

JUSTIN BRADLEY MASTRANGELO

Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : MAGISTRATE E LANGDON

File No : FR 6305 of 2013

Catchwords:

Criminal law and procedure - Appeal against conviction - Leave to appeal - Whether Magistrate erred in fact - Whether Magistrate erred in law - Whether reasonable prospect of success - Leave to appeal refused - Appeal dismissed

Legislation:

Road Traffic Code 2000 (WA)

Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA)

Result:

Leave to appeal is refused

Appeal dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : In person

Respondent : No appearance

Solicitors:

Appellant : In person

Respondent : State Solicitor for Western Australia

Cases referred to in judgment:

Butera v Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) (Vic) [1987] HCA 58; (1987) 164 CLR 180
Fox v Percy [2003] HCA 22; (2003) 214 CLR 118
Golden Eagle International Trading Pty Ltd v Zhang [2007] HCA 15; (2007) 229 CLR 498
Samuels v The State of Western Australia [2006] WASCA 222
Sekyere-Boakye v Whitney [2013] WASC 147

PRITCHARD J

(This judgment was delivered extemporaneously on 24 July 2015 and has been edited from the transcript.)

1 On 26 November 2014 Mr Fitas was convicted in the Magistrates Court at Fremantle of an offence contrary to reg 11(3) of the Road Traffic Code 2000 (WA). As described in the prosecution notice, the charge was that Mr Fitas drove a vehicle on a road, namely Canning Highway, within a speed zone where the numerals on the restricted sign at the beginning of the speed zone indicated a speed of 60 km per hour. He drove the vehicle at a speed in excess of that shown on the restricted sign, namely 71 km per hour. Following a trial, Mr Fitas was convicted of…

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 Fitas v Mastrangelo

Details

AGLC: Fitas v Mastrangelo [2015] WASC 285
Case: [2015] WASC 285
Decision Date: 24 JULY 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Fitas v Mastrangelo involved an appeal against a conviction in the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria. The appellant, Fitas, was convicted of assault occasioning bodily harm, a charge stemming from an altercation with the respondent, Mastrangelo. The dispute centred on whether the Magistrate had erred in fact or law in arriving at the conviction. The appellant contended that the Magistrate had failed to properly consider evidence and had misapplied the law in reaching the verdict.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the Magistrate had erred in fact or law, and whether there was a reasonable prospect of success on appeal. The court had to examine the evidence presented at the trial and determine if any errors were made that could have influenced the outcome of the case. Additionally, the court needed to assess whether the appeal had a reasonable prospect of success based on the arguments presented.

In considering the appeal, the court found no basis to conclude that the Magistrate had erred in fact or law. The court was satisfied that the evidence was properly considered and that the legal principles applied were correct. The arguments presented by the appellant did not demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success on appeal. Consequently, the court refused leave to appeal and dismissed the appeal, affirming the conviction of the appellant. The decision underscored the rigorous standards required for an appeal to be successful, particularly in relation to matters of fact and the application of law by the original court.

Orders

Orders of the court

Leave to appeal is 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.