Goesch v Summers

[2022] ACTSC 298

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

Goesch v Summers

Citation:

[2022] ACTSC 298

Hearing Date:

31 October 2022

DecisionDate:

31 October 2022

Before:

Elkaim J

Decision:

(i)    the appeal is allowed.

(ii)   The conviction is entered on 14 June 2022 are set aside.

(iii)   The appellant is acquitted of the two charges of which he was convicted by the Magistrate.

Catchwords:

APPEAL – MAGISTRATES COURT APPEAL – Whether the verdict of guilty was unreasonable – s 219F of the Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT) – appeal allowed

Legislation Cited:

Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT) s 219F

Parties:

Dale Goesch (Appellant)

Natalie Summers (Respondent)

Representation:

Counsel

E Chen (Appellant)

M Howe (Respondent)

Solicitors

Legal Aid ACT (Appellant)

ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Number:

SCA 20 of 2022

Decision under appeal: 

Court/Tribunal:             ACT Magistrates Court

Before:  Magistrate Cook

Date of Decision:          14 June 2022

Case Title:  Police v Goesch

Court File Number:      CAN 9786 of 2021

  CAN 9788 of 2021

Elkaim J:

1. On 11 April 2022, a Magistrate heard a prosecution in which three charges were put forward: perverting the course of justice, perverting the course of justice by joint commission and using false evidence. The second charge was a backup charge to the first.

1. On 14 June 2022, the learned Magistrate convicted the appellant of the first and third charges.

1. The appellant lodged an appeal in which there are four grounds. It is only necessary to consider the fourth ground, that the verdicts of guilty were unreasonable and cannot be supported by the evidence.

1. It is only necessary to consider this ground because the Crown has conceded that the ground should be upheld and an acquittal should follow.

1. Under s 219F of the Magistrates Court Act1930 (ACT), the Supreme Court may make an order as contemplated by the parties “after considering the evidence before the Magistrates Court and any further evidence called by leave of the Supreme Court”.

1. No further evidence has been called. The evidence in the Magistrates Court was constituted by an agreed statement of facts, a transcript of proceedings in which the letter at the core of the proceedings was tendered, a disk containing some phone calls (upon which no weight was placed) and the subject letter.

1. The respondent in his written submissions says:

The respondent concedes Ground D on the basis there was no evidence adduced to prove the defendant knew the contents of the letter written by Ms Cargill were false. The alternative hypothesis that the appellant did not know the contents of the document could not be excluded.

1. Accordingly, continued the respondent, the “appellant was entitled to an acquittal and the charges should be dismissed”.

1. Having reviewed the evidence, the respondent’s position is both fair and correctly made.

1. I make the following orders:

(i)the appeal is allowed.

(ii)The convictions entered on 14 June 2022 are set aside.

(iii)The appellant is acquitted of the two charges of which he was convicted by the Magistrate.

I certify that the preceding ten [10] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of his Honour Justice Elkaim.

Associate:

Date: